The record-union., 1897-05-09
HEISEN Was DISCHARGED.
Proved He Did Not Forge ". ]. HulPS
Name.
The Latter Probably Forgot Having
Signed a Blank Power of
Attorney.

The charge of forgery against Charles
Heisen was heard and disposed of in
the Police Court yesterday by his dis
charge. 1t grew out of transaction
between w. J. Hull, a railroad en-
ploye, and Heisen, who is a money
broker
Hull is a tenant of James G. Davis,
and the latter has been collecting HulFs
wages from the company. Some months
ago one of Mr.. Davis sons borrowed
go of Heisen, and Hull signed the
note with him. Heisen afterward had
an order, signed with Hulfs name,
presented to the railroad company for
collection, but this order Hull declared
he did not sign. Hence the charge of
forgery.
A. ?. Soule, the first witness, an en-
ploye in the Chief Clerks office at the
railroad shops, produced the order for
HulPs wages for April in ia
vor of Charles Heisen. 1t was
assigned to the Knott collection
agency by Martin Devine, clerk and at
torney for Heisen.
The witness also produced several
letters. One was addressed to H. J..
Small, Superintendent of Construction
and Motive Power at the railway shops,
by Martin Devine relating to Hulls or
der and the others were between the
Knott collection agency and Mr.. Small
on the same subject.
Witness testified that since February,
1896, j. G. Davis had been drawing
HulPs wages. Davis had also drawn
Hulfs wages prior to that time.
w. J. Hull testified that he had been
an employe of the railroad company for
eleven years. He was shown an order
for his April wages in favor of Charles
Heisen and asked if he signed it. He
replied that he did not. He had signed
but one such order for that month, and
that was in favor of Mr.. Davis. He
did not authorize Heisen to fill out any
blank order for his wages, had not done
business with him, and did not sign the
order shown him.
On cross examination witness testi-
fed that some years ago he had deal
ings with Heisen, and that the latter
then collected his wages.
Attorney Devine asked him if he had
ever gone by the name of Miller, and
he denied that he had. The witness
was then shown a certain note or or
oCAs III Laws 4ahOls anu dO4lAlAth tAioA
it was his signature but on the Heisen
order he denied that it was his.
At one time he and his wife borrowed
S100 of Heisen, and Heisen drew his
wages to that amount, but he did not
give any order therefor. He signed a
note with his wife for the 500 That
was during 1898, and Heisen collected
the money by attaching him. But he
could not remember ever having been
summoned TO court in any action of
that kind.
on redirect examination he testified
that his wages for the two months Qn
1888 amounted to S199 but all he got
out Of it from Heisen was something
over $50.
on recrOss examination Hull testified
that last fall in August or September,
he called at Heisens office in response
TO notice to call and see about the or
der for his salary, but he denied that
he begged Miss Heisen not TO send in
the order to the railroad company.
John F. Davis, son of J. c. Davis,
testified that some months ago he went
TO Heisen with Hull TO get SO that he
needed. He asked Hull to go on his
note for the amount Heisen told his
daughter to make out a note, which she
did. He and Hull signed the note, but
nothing was said about any order on
the railroad company for Mr. Hulrs
wages, and no blank order nor power of
attorney was given by Hull at that
time
on cross witness said he
called twice on Heisen. on the first
visit Heisen told him 10 get some rail-
road man to go on his note, so he went
and got Hull.
Witness was positive he had signed
but one paper, the note referred to, but
on being shown another paper he ad
mitted that the signature to it looked
like his own, but would not say posi-
lively whether it was or was not his
signature.
The prosecution then called Martin
Devine, Heisen's attorney, to the wit
ness stand. He identified the order on the
railroad company for Hulls April wages
in favor of Heisen, with his Devine's)
assignment to the collecting agency
Acting as Heisen's attorney, witness ex-
planned that certain words We're filled
in in the order in accordance with the
form used in all such transactions with
railroad employees.
The order for Hulls wages was held
back because the custom is not to file
orders with the railroad company be-
cause Of the danger of Hull being dis
charged. So Mr.. Heisen preferred to
exhaust his legal rights to collect be-
fore resorting to the other method.
James G. Davis testified that he had
been collecting HulTs wages from the
railroad company. Last September he
complained to Heisen about lending
money to his son, but Heisen said he had
security for it,
The prosecution showed that Heisen
had sued Hull and ]. T. Davis on their
joint note and received Judgment.
The defense called r. T. Cohn, County
Auditor and Recorder, as an expert on
handwriting and asked him to compare
the alleged forged signature with one
that Hull admitted to be his.
City Attorney Brown objected to the
witness testifying as an expert. as his
ability in that respect had not been
shown.
Mr.. Cohn said he examined thousands
of signatures every month, and in re-
cording deeds, etc, often had to make
comparisons for Identification.
He was permitted to testify, and said
the two signatures were very similar.
They appeared about the same to him.
other signatures of Hull were shown
the witness. and so far as he could judge
they were all alike.
on cross examination Mr.. Cohn said
he would not pretend to say that the