The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1897-12-02

holder in the concern to the extent OF
$50, 600 and held certificates of stock which
have since been surrendered. Certificates
were numbered consecutively as they
were made out. Witness filed out all
these certificates except one which Mr..
Tyler filed out. Had not been more
than one certificate bearing one number.
Certificate No. GO was filed out by wit
ness in April, 1881, and surrendered in
January by l.. j, Midday & Co. and was
genuine. Was familiar with handwrit-
ing of d. flyer and W. w Clark.
The prosecutor then offered certificate
to witness asking whether il was genu-
Inc, to which witness replied that it was
not. The reasons for determining were
that the certificate bearing the same
number, 66, had been surrendered, and
further, the signature of WV. Clark was
an imitation. Witness cxI llined the
defects in the fraudulent signature. The
body of the genuine certificate was writ
ten by witness, while the fraudulent
certificate was written by some one
else. There was no cross examination.
W. W. CLARK
was the next witness. He had resided
in Canton for thirty years and was en-
gagged in manufacturing. Was president
of the Diebold Safe and Lock Co. d.
Tyler was secretary and treasurer up to
1897, Company was originally incorpor-
ated at SlSO,OOO but later increased to
5000, 600. Certificate of stock No. GO
was offered and recognized as genuine.
Another certificate bearing same number
was offered, which witness claimed was
forged Witness claimed that it was not
his writing; that it did not correspond
with his signature at all. First learned
of the forgery of this certificate in fall
of 1896, when suit was instituted by J.
H. Hunt. Witness talked with Mr..
Tyler after learning of the forgery. Tyler
admitted that it was forged and offered
to take it up Immediately. Witness
stated TO Mr. Tyler that it would be
necessary to file an answer and set out
that the certificate was forged Mr..
Tyler said that he had arranged with Mr..
Midday so that he would take it up and
it could then be kept quiet. Witness was
cross examined by Attorney Meyer rela-
tive to the genuineness of the seal on the
forged certificate.
"The state rests" said Prosecutor
Pomerene at the conclusion of Mr..
Clark testimony.
"The defense has no testimony to
offer, ;" said Attorney Meyer.
"Wer, will waive the opening argu-
ment, said the states attorney.
1--WE waive argument" stated Attor-
ney Meyer.
The case was thcreupon submitted to
Judge McCmt.', who Immediately began
his charge to the jury.
The judge read the indie ment against
D. Tyler and followed this by reading the
statute bearing upon forgery, The court
stated that the defendant had pleaded
not guilty. This brought into issue all
he statements referring to the forgery
The state was called upon to offer proof
hat would convince the jury beyond
/ doubt that the defendant was guilty.
The court then reviewed in detail the
testimony that had been offered by the
tate, referring especially to Mr.'W. W.
2lark's testimony regarding the forged
ignature and Mr.. Tyler's alleged
omission that it was forged, and then
ubmitted the case to the jury.
JURY RETURNS ITS VERDICT
The jury retired at 1920 and was out
Dut a few minutes when it returned
With verdict finding Dominick Tyler
utility as charged in the Indictment.
The jury was then excused until
'clock next Monday morning.
The bond Of 81, 800 for Mr. Tylers ap-
earance in court from day to day Us re- :
uired remains the same since the YER {
let, but it was necessary that 1t be re-
ewed. 1t is understood that the coun- {
el for defense will file motion for
ew trial within the required three days. '