The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-11-16
IT'S NOT DISMISSED
The Suit Of Fred Radue and the Note
Is Still On.
FORGERY is THE WORD NOW
Witnesses Tell What They Know
About Tuohy's Signature-Con-
vict Gordon Sherman Will
Leave the Pen to Testify.

Judge Speer yesterday morning
overruled the motion Of the defense to
dismiss the suit of Fred Radue
against Father Pauwelyn, admins
traitor of the estate of James Tuohy.
deceased. The motion. which was ar
gued on Thursday. was based on the
fact that the suit on the $4,000 note
had been commenced more than a year
before the maturity Of the instrument.
The Judge, in overruling. the motion,
said in his judgment suit on note
against an estate could be brought as
soon as the claim was disallowed by
the administrator. otherwise 1t would
work a great hardship and injury to
creditors. The decision Is based on
section 155 of the probate practice act,
which reads: when a claim Is re-
tected. either bv the executor or adj
ministrator or the probate judge, the
holder must bring suit in the proper
court against the executor or admins
TRAITOR, within three days after the
date of its rejection. II II be then due,
or within two months after IT becomes
due. otherwise the claim Is forever
barred"
After the decision of the court the
trial was commenced and the follow
ing jury drawn to try the case. Ed
ward Levy. w. Fl. Matthews, Richard
Mulholland. George A Smith, Edward
Temby. j. w. Miller. ]. #. Brown,
Haskell Osgood. John Esterson, John
Ingram. Chris johnson and w. j. Trey
thick.
In the opening statement for the
plaintiff. Mr.. Hall said the proofs
would show that on March "a, 1898,
James Tuohy executed the note to DIR.
Joseph Weyerhorst for professional
services. On Oct. 2 Tuohy died, and
the defendant. Cyril Pauwelyn, was
appointed administrator. and he disal-
attorney said the execution of the
note would be proved beyond ques-
tion.
+. z. Corbett. for the defense, prom
ised some sensational testimony. He
said they would show that the note
was a forgery. procured by DIR. Wey-
erhorst and was never executed by
James Tuohy. He said 1T would be
shown that during one of Tuohy's last
attacks of illness DR.. Weyerhorst
treated him and that afterwards he
went to Tuohy's place and asked him
to sign a certificate reciting the eff
cheney of his skill as a doctor and the
efficacy of his treatment. The doctor
read the alleged certificate to Tuohy
and Tuohy said he would sign 1t and
did so. The signature to the note Is
genuine. but when 1t was made 1t was
not attached to a note. The body of
the note was filed in after the sigma
ture was obtained. He also said the
plaintiff. Radue. is not the legal holder
OF the note. and that 1t was assigned
TO him for the purpose OF defraudlng
the estate.
w. V. LAWYER was the first witness
called by the plaintiff. but before he
could testify to anything the defense
testimony ON the same ground on
which the motion to dismiss had been
based and the objection was overruled.
Mr.. Lawler was formerly teller at the
State Savings bank. and testified THAI
he had seen Tuohy write his name on
the signature book of the bank and by
comparison he thought the signature
on the note was that of Tuohy. The
witness hesitated a great deal in Civ
ing his testimony and Mr.. Haldorn
and Mr.. Hall were evidently some
what surprised and endeavored to
have him give a straight answer
He Is doing the best he can," said
Mr.. Corbett. interrupting.
mo. he Is not" replied Mr.. Haldorn.
with some warmth. for the signature
was shown him at the bank and he
then said positively that Vt was Mr..
Tuohy's signature. and for that rea-
son he was called as "a witness"
The witness. however. would not
make a positive declaration as to the
signature on the note. and on cross
examination by Mr. Cotter he said
that several of the letters OF the sigma
ture on the note We're not exactly like
the signature on the bank book.
IF that signature were presented to
you on a note for s25.0000 would you
accept It as genuine ?" asked Mr.. Cot
ter.
IF you or Mr.. Tuohy presented II
would accept II at once. otherwise /
would not be satisfied with It," was
the reply.
Tuohy was full he made more
fiourishes TO his signature than when
he was sober.
Harry Wing. bookkeeper at the
State Savings bank. was the next wit
ness and said he was familiar with the
signature of Tuohy and believed that
the signature on the note was genuine.
IF that signature were presented to
you on a $4,000 check would you pay
any money on It," asked Mr.. Cotter on
cross-examination.
II would after COMPARISON with the
signature book"
Mr. Wing could find no material diff
ference between any of the letters in
the two signatures.
Mr.. Wing said there were some slight
differences in the letters of the two sig
natures. but not enough for a man to
say that they were not written by the
same man.
Joseph Ramsdell testified that he was
acquainted with Tuohy's signature and
had seen him sign his name. To the
best of his belief ne said the signature
TO the note was genuine.
DIR. Harding said he would take the
signature on the note 10 be that of
Tuohy.
Joseph Weyerhorst was the next Wit
ness, but his testimony was brief He
said he had known Tuohy for seven
years prior TO his death. The note was
given him by Tuohy March T. 1898. at
McParland's boarding house in South
Butte. There was no one present at
the time but the witness and TuOhy
Weyerhorst said the body OF the note
was IN his own handwriting and the
-