The herald., 1897-06-23
Curious1y Contradictory
Evidence
A DEBT RISES IN JUDGMENT
MISS MIZENER rs SUING THE
BRADBURY ESTATE
Charge Of Embezzlement Against 6.
Lindenfeldt-Regarding the
Work on the Baltimore

The defense opened In the case OF Mrs
Julia Knox. charged with perjury. yes
terday. ana a somewhat different COM
plexion has been thrown upon the cir
cunnstances Of the case, which have been
In themselves sufficiently entangled.
AS a matter Of fact Mrs. Knox cannot,
on oath, say absolutely whether she
signed or did not sign that note for $780,
payable to Mrs. Driscoll, and drawn In
the office of Attorney Pierce. But she
is very positive that if she did sign it, it
was under a misconception, and she had
no reason to sign a note for any such
amount.
when the defendant testified in the
township court that she had never sign
ed the note, and repudiated 1t, she cid
so. so she testified, for several reasons.
First, because she never owed Mrs.
Driscoll more than 500, other than
few small amounts, which she had re-
paid. and there was, therefore. no sense
in having signed note for the larger
amount, Secondly, the occurrence
which caused her to become indebted TO
Mr.. Driscoll for 500 did not occur until
March, 1895, while the note was dated
in January, 1895. Thirdly, and lastly,
Mrs. Knox felt fortified in the stand
she took when she remembered that she
had in her possession Attorney Pierce's
receipt for the $100 which she had re-
ceived from Mrs. Driscoll, and at once
turned over to Mr. Pierce as counsel fees.
These several facts were so firmly en-
graved on Mrs. Knoxs mind that she
felt perfectly certain in her reputation
Of the $3.50 note.
But the note is in evidence, and 1t is
certain that either Mrs. Knox signed it
or that her signature was forged. With
regard to it's being dated previous to the
time when the S100 was paid over. At
torney Pierce and Mrs. Driscoll both
stated upon the witness stand that the
note was antedated to the time in jan
uary when the debt of $150-making UP
the balance of the note-was contracted.
But both of these witnesses testified
practically to the contrary at the pre-
liminary examination, and, after the
signing episode in Attorney Pierce's Of
flee, several witnesses testified to con-
versations in which Mrs. Driscoll took
part, and in which she claimed an in
debtedness on the part of Mrs. Knox
of only $100. On Christmas night of
1895, in the presence of Mrs. Knox, her
husband and Miss Emma Hassfurther,
after Mrs. Knox had spoken in rather
downcast manner regarding her
troubles Of the past year, Mrs. Driscoll
remarked: you are not in debt much,
and the $100 note you owe me you need
not worry over. I would not call for it
at all if it was not for my son George"
Then again, in April, 1896, the same
people being present, and also Edward
Sales the latter asked Mrs. Knox if she
owned her place, and she replied: II do
not consider that I own it until it is
paid for" and thereupon she turned
to Mrs. Driscoll and inquired: Have
you destroyed that 500 note of mine?"
and Mrs. Driscoll responded: "Yes, I've
torn it up"
With regard to the tearing PROPOSE
ton, and as explanatory of it, Mrs.
Knox had paid $50 on the note and later
having done various kinds Of work for
Mrs. Driscoll. the latter said they would
cry quits and she would tear up the note.
And 50 she did, apparently, for the note
in evidence has been torn into bits and
then pasted together. But it Is $3.50
note, not a 500 one.