The Anaconda standard., 1895-11-20
IT WILL NOT BE PAID
That Large Alleged Note Is Said Il
Be q Forgery.
THE JURY SETTLES THE CASE
James Tuohy Never Gave an Evil
dence of Indebtedness to DR..
Weyerhorstfor Such a Mag
nificent Amount


case has decided that the note was
a forgery and that James Tuohy never
gave an evidence of Indebtedness ia
DR.. Weyerhorst for such an amount
The arguments in the case were made
yesterday morning and the Jury re-
tried about ~ o'clock. They were out
until o'clock and returned with a
verdict for the defendant. Cyril Pau
welyn. administrator of Tuohy's es-
tate.
The jury was polled. on request of
Mr.. Hall. and stood 10 to 2 for the
verdict. as follows: Yes-W. H. Mat
thews. Richard Wulholand. George A.
Smith. ]. w. Miller. ]. f. Brown, Has
kell Osgood. John Esterson. John In
, gram. Chris Johnson and w. J. Trevit-
| hick; Woodward Levy and Edward
Tembv.
The arguments I'm the case yesterday
morning were opened by o. M. Hall
for the plaintiff and said the burden
of proof was on the defense to sustain
their allegation that the note was
a forgery, in which they absolutely
failed. The testimony of the PLAINTIFF s
witnesses as to the good character of
DR.. Weyerhorst precludes any suspi-
cion that the note Is a forgery.
+. f. Corbett. for the defense, in
his argument said no attempt had been
made by his side to disprove the. genu-
ineness of James Tuohy's signature on
the note. but 1t was attached TO some
other paper on the body OF the note
filed in after the signature had been
attached. The note itself is sufficient
proof of that. In the date line the top
of the letter ''B" In Butte torn of, show
ing that originally the paper was
longer and the note had been torn OFF
after 1t had been written over the sig
nature. There was certain amount OF
space to fill with the body OF the note
and to start with the man VINO wrote
II put seven words on a line and 10
ward the end had to stretch Vt out
to four words to uhe line in order TO
fill the space down TO the signature.
The plaintiffs absolutely failed to show
any consideration for the note or for
the assignment TO the nominal plain
tiff, Fred Radue. WHO is this man
weyerhorst who comes into court with
note for s25.000? Twenty cents
would pay for all he ever knew and 81
cents would pay for all he will ever
learn"
John w. Cotter followed Mr.. Corbett
and said ne did not believe there ex-
listed such a man as Fred .Radue- He
has an interest in the case to the ex-
tent Of $25 900 and yet he has not been
present at Uflc VTldl. Inc dlleBeu as
signment to Radue was made In fur
therance of the scheme. for Weyerhorst
knew that the law precluded him, as
owner or the note, from testfying
when the maker OF the note Is dead,
but aIiter the note passed into the
hands OF an alleged innocent purchaser
ne could appear as a witness. Mr..
Cotter referred to Weyerhorst's alleged
attempt to buy Dan Shields to testify
fpn hrrf h0
couldn't buv him and he wouldn't die
on his hands so he fell down in his
conspiracy. "If he could have treated
him for dropsy also" said the attorney,
"he might have been able to get rid of
Shields" Mr.. Cotter said under a rule
of the state supreme court not only
were the plaintiffs required to prove tho
execution of the note but also show
consideration for II. They were not
aware of this decisions and made no at
tempt to pro~e a consideration, said the
attorney. and The court would instruct
the jury that the plaintiffs could not
recover If there was no consideration
shown. Mr.. Cotter said IL Weyerhorst
had mis- dues he would be In the peni-
tentiary with Gordon Sherman. and In
referring to Lawyer Blodgett's testi-
mony he said was a case of setting
thief to catch a thief. Weyerhorst
knew what character of man Blodgett
was when he consulted him about the
forgery. .s
George Haldorn closed the argu-
ments, summing up the testimony in
behalf OF the plaintiff. He said the
only defense was a fishing defense.
They started out to prove forgery
but they failed and then they switched
and said the note was a fraud. They
persit in calling DIR. Weyerhorst a
forger after having admitted the sig
nature to be genuine. Mr.. Haldorn
told the jury that II they had any be-
lief in the testimony OF Dan Shields
they should not hesitate to declare
Weyerhorst a forger. The law says the
existence of a note imparts considera-
tion and the defense. alleging fraud
and forgery, must prove the charge.
Mr. Haldorn said the defense had
promised. and started out TO prove,
That the note had been written on the
bottom of a testimonial written for
DIR. weyerhorst by Tuohy. but unfor-
tunately for them the testimonial was
produced in court and shown that It
had not been altered and that there
had not been room on 1t TO write a
note. Then they switched again and
claimed the note was written on the
bottom of an option. but the option
was produced and II was evident II had
not been tampered with. and then they
went fishing for another paper but
did not find II.
The courts instructions We're brief
and to the effects that the burden of
proof, to show fraud. was on the de-
PENDANT and that well-grounded
suspicion or belief that the note was a
forgery was not sufficient but would
have to be shown by a preponderance
of the evidence. On the question of
consideration the court Instructed that
the plaintiff failed to show any I'm the
transfer to Radue and that the latter
could not claim any interest not pos.
sessed by Weyerhorst.
sals.