The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-05-27
NORRIS DIDN'T APPEAR
ALLEGED DETECTIVE FAILED TO
CONFRONT HIS PRISONER.
David Murray Released on Charge of
Breach-of-Promise Suit.

Yesterday was the day when the authori-
ties from Ohio were to identify Murray in
the Criminal Court, in accordance with the
law but at o'clock no one had appeared.
Tuesday night Sheriff Shufelton received a
telegram bearing the signature OF the sher-
if of Sandusky county, stating that the
authorities of the county would go to no
further expense in getting Murray into
Ohio, and would not appear at the exam
ination to-day.
Murray was arrested through the efforts
of John T. Norris, who says he is a detec-
tive. Norris lives in Springfield, o. The
indianapolis police have heard of Norris
before, and have no confidence in him. 1t
was predicted at the time of the arrest that
Norris and the Sandusky sheriff who made
the arrest would not appear in court
against Murray. Henry n. Spaan, Muir
rays attorney, had witnesses ready yester-
DAY from Murray'S own neighborhood in
this city who We're prepared to testify that
the accused was in Indianapolis at the time
OF his alleged offense in Ohio.
Norris, in his long career, has gained an
amount of notoriety that seldom falls to
the lot of even the private detective. The
threat of showing up his character does
not usually brighten him, for his character
mas been shown up so often that a little
thing like proving that he was once con-
X W1h OF crime does not bother him at al.
Wnen he drops a case those FAMILIAR with
his methods take it for granted that he has
found a man who will fight, or a man vino
has Settled" Norris has made a speciality
of keeping tabs" upon the gold brick
men who make a business of separating
the farmer anxious to get something for
their records so thoroughly that he is able
to keep track of them and catch them up
in any State they. happen to be sojourning
in, for there are indictments against them
hanging in great many States.
Whenever Norris hears of a gold brick"
or tin box game being worked, he takes
not squandered all the money at once, and
if he can get evidence. upon which they can
usually finds them, but it is curious fact
noted by men who keep informed upon sucn
such matters that he very rarely has the
men convicted. Sometimes he does not
even have them arrested, but he frequently
goes so far as to have them indicted and
then drops the case upon some preteXt
Norris has a very handsome home at
Springfield. which is in his wife's name, he
himself being entirely Judgment proof, ana
had it improved for nothing. Thoroughly
understanding the fact that under the com
mon law all improvements upon real estate
go to the property, he has ordered nand-
some iron fences, cement walks, shrubbery
and even statuary for the GROUNDS, as wen
as a summer house and outbuildings. After
a bit of this work was finished the con-
tractor could whistle for his money. NOR
ris was irresponsible and his wife did not
order the work, but it could not be torn
down, for it belonged to her. He once or
dered a piano, and when it was delivered
told the men making the delivery TO screw
the instrument to the floor. They did so,
and the piano. being attached 20 the real
estate, is there vet.
1t is related that the only man that ever
got the best of him on this kind of a deal
was an Irishman, whom he had employed
to dig some postholes on the Norris farm
near Springfield, also held in Mrs Norris
name After he had them about completed
a neighbor explained Norris's methods to
him. and assured him that he would never
get his pay. He was indignant and went
tn them IdInDlIlS
them down hard. He then went to town
and met Norris on the street, ..a..
Hello, Pat cried the detective ala
you dig them hoesY
yes sir, said Pat and he was telling
no lie, for he had dug them, albeit he had
TO his great surprise Norris took out his
pocketboOk and paid him the agreed price
He pocketed the money and, as he also was
Irresponsible Norris never recovered a cent
of it. The detective tried to have MN pun
ished for obtaining money under raise pre-
lenses but the IriShman proved tnat ne
had dug the holes, and this was all Norris
asked him before paying him.
KfrkhOff Observation-Disclosures Suit.
The transcript in the breach-of-promise
suit of Mary Suhr against Charles Kirk
hoff. ST., filed in the Circuit Court of How
ard county year ago, has arrived and the
case will be placed on the docket in the
Superior Court. The case comes to Marion
county on change of venue. Miss Suhr, the
plaintiff, was a resident of Indianapolis
during the period of her courtship with the
defendant
The plaintiff demands $4,000 damages for
the manner in which she alleges her affec-
lions have been triffied with. She says
that on April 25, 1895. Kirkhon asked her TO
become his wife ana sne af fo me NOME
of January, 1895. Jan. % or that year, the
plaintiff AYERS, Kirkhoff was married 10 one
promise to her The defendant she says,
was at that time and is now possessed of
property valued at $4,000. s.e.,.
vowed his great affection for her, telling
her he could not live happily without nef,
and she consented, because OF heT grea ss
induced her to dispose OF her property IN
this city at a great sacrlnce preparatory
to removing to Kokomo. one declares the
defendant secured her promise TO become
his wife for the purpose or WlIl1ully de-
ceiving her and to betray her confidence.
The affair, she says, has pfought her INTO
contempt and ridicule among her relatives
and friends and has caused her great dis
tress and anguish of nina.
Pleads statute of Limitation.
new motion was filed yesterday in the
suit of Mrs. BERTHE Elliott against Samuel
l.. Douglass to recover money alleged to
have been lost by the plaintiffs husband in
the defendants polo room in the rear of
Irons Illinois-street saloon. The suit was
brought in the Circuit Court last FEBRUARY.
1t was claimed that George w. Elliott had
between March / 1894 and Sept. 30, of the
same wear lost between 81, O0O and $3,OOO on
foreign horse races, leaving his wife desu-
tute. The attorneys for Douglass flled de-
murrer to the complaint, Whlch was over
ruled. Yesterday they came into court
again and asked the court TO reconsider IT'S
decision on the demurrer, claiming Ii mad
overlooked a most important tact Inc con-
tontion was then made that every para
graph of the plaintiffs complaint shows
that the cause of action did not accrue
within two years before the commencement
of the action. The defendants claim that,
as the suit was not brought ulltll TOUR
months after the period OF llmltaton mad
expired. the plaintiff has no place in court.
Judge Allen has taken the petition under
Amusement.
Divorce Complaints.
Bertha A. Hollis. who was married to
Earl Hollis Feb. Il, 1887, is an unhappy
wife. She tells a rather peculiar story of
her marital woes. She says that immedi-
ately after her marriage to the defendant
in Cincinnati he became cold and Indifferent
to her and declared in the presence OF their
friends that he had no love for her w hen
they We're alone he would taunt her with
the declaration that he cared notnlilg Tor
her when he married her. He wounded her
feelings. she AYERS on every possible occa-
sion. They came to indianapolis 10 I'VE
and the defendant deserted her. she asks
for divorce and the restoration or her
maiden name. Bretha A. Keller.
liam e. Slayer on the grounds OF desertion
and failure to provide. She says Slayer
abandoned her last March, leaving her
without means Of support She says she