New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-09-05
A WIFE'S PLEA.
SHE ASSERTS THAT HER HUSBAND IA II.
LEGALLY DETAINED on THE CHARGE
OF FORGERY


Justice Van Wyck OF the suprens Fam.
yesterday asked to discharge Harry R,ch.,a..-
from custody on the return Of a writ a, h...O -
corpus and certiorarf sued out by his w,,. T,
Richardson. who asserts that he is Illegally 49,
The charge against the defendant s ,b., s
tered a forged note J. H. Baker 4 ~
IA South-st. New-York. the allegation hs,n. -
he gave the note to r. w. Taylor a r,,,o
jeweller. Mrs Richardson asks fer her bush.,a,
discharge on the ground that he has comr,,,.a
no crime and that the papers on which he {.
held defective
When the case was called yesterday in return
to the writ. the proceedings before Justice Walsh
the committing magistrate, were submitted Thev
consisted Of affidavit by J. II, Baker In which
he deposad that Charles H. Abbott was the o,he,
member Of his firm. that tho note was not issued
by the deponent by his authority that It was not
In his handwriting. and that he knew OF no bust.
ness transaction of the firm which would call 10,
q note of the kind in question Mr. Taylor the
jeweller deposod that Richardson had asked him
to accept the note.
In the traverse to the return IT was alleged that
the note had been made by Baker & Co., notwith.
standing the statement OF Mr.. Baker that II had
been executed by Charles II. Abbott. one OF the
members of the firm and that Mr. Baker had
known all about it, +. J. McCrossin who ap-
peared for the petitioner. stated that when Rich
ardson handed the note to Taylor the jeweler
asked permission TO keep it until the next day
and Richardson consented That not
Ike the act of a guilty man. Further. Mr.. Abbott
who was away in Pennsylvania, in attendance on
his sick wife deposed that Ve had made the note
and that Mr.. Baker knew all about II. Mr. Nc
Crossin said the affidavit stated that Abbott was q
member Of the firm and did not deny that Abbott
gave the note Therefore. he said. the affidavit
was valueless proof That the note OF the
firm forgery Abbott mad as good right
TO make the note Baker himself Consequently
there absolutely nothing to show In the COM
mitment that the note was forgery and In con-
nection with this the attorney said the affidavit
OF Abbott clearly proved that the note was genuine
There was, therefore, no crime. he argued for
which the defendant could be held. and he ought
TO be discharged
District Attorney Backus said that there was
enough in the commit ment to give the Justice Jur-
isdiction When The defendant was before Justice
Walsh Mr. Abbott did not appear. and there was
mott ing for the Justice to do but to hold the DEFEND
ant for examination. Furthermore the District
Attorney said he. had been assured that this man
Mr. AIcCrossin said that the statement that the
man criminal going around and commit
ting forgerics. was absolutely false. The de'ec-
tives and the strctAttorney had mistaken him
for another man altogether. When the defendant
was before Justice Walsh Mr.. Abbott failed Ia
appear because he had been called away 10 az
tend his wife in Pennsylvania. Mr.. Mccrossin
will submit authorities to the Court supporting hi
demand for the defendants release.