Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-06-30
THE COTS FORGERY TRIAL
WAS RESUMED IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF MARSHALL COUNTY
YESTERDAY.
MANY WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the State, and Large Amount
of Important Testimony Heard-A
Night Session Held-Defense VIII
Examine Witnesses To-Day-Sy-
nOpsfs of the Evidence.

nopsfs of the Evidence.
The Colts forgery trial was resumed
in the Circuit Court Of Marshall coun-
ty yesterday. The first witness called
was Squire D. z. Phillips. He had had
some conversation with Mr.. Colts, but
nothing of Importance was brought out.
w. P. Robinson, attorney for Andrew
K. Habberfeld, was the next witness.
On cross-examination he said that he
had the indemnifying bond in his pos
session until the time the civil suit was
entered, when it was turned over to
Justice w. w. Rodgers, who retained it
until February 1, 1900. He first got the
envelope and contents from A. K. Hab-
berfield, January 81, 1900. At the trial
he saw the defendant show the folded
paper to Habberfield and demanded it.
but was refused. Colts put it in his
pocket, but later tore out the signature
and gave it to the Justice, who pasted
it on the declaration. The witness
called the attention of the court and
jurors TO the date of cancellation on the
revenue stamps on the alleged false
note. The date is 1-27-1S99, and not
7-27-1899. He represented Habberfield
when the motion for a new trial was
made and saw the alleged forged note
for the first time. His examination of
Mr.. Colts was taken down by his stem
ographer, Miss Ritz, and was after
ward transcribed. The copy of the
examination was identified by Miss
Ritz, and was read to the jury. He
sent Bradford up for Habberfeld to
come down and swear out the warrant.
He said that he knew OF two or three
suits brought against Mrs. Alice Brad
ford by w. ]. Colts. At this point the
defense asked if Bradford did not rent
houses in alley c for immoral purposes.
The State objected and was sustained.
He denied saying to John Williams and
Amanda Holmes that he would railroad
Colts to the penitentiary.
He had interviewed the Habberfields
and told them that they would be ask
ed to identify their fathers signature
and told them not to say Il think it is
his, but to answer yes or no. He did
not cause the warrants to be issued in
order to collect the debt, but because
ba fhouobt If woo hio drtu
He had seen Habberfield's signature
and was familiar with It. Did not
claim to be an expert in penmanship,
but thought the alleged forged sigma
ture was unlike the genuine in several
respects. He pointed out several diff
ferences which he saw.
w. w. Rodgers, the Justice before
whom the civil action against Mr.. Colts
was brought, was the next witness call
ed. He produced his docket and an
swered several questions regarding the
dates of the different proceedings He
was asked if Colts did not offer $S4 as
set off. Witness could not say until
he had referred to his docket The
record showed that Colts claimed he
did not owe the plaintiff anything.
On cross-examination he said that
Colts came into his Office after the mo-
ton to set aside the verdict had been
made and showed him the note He
was not positive about the signature on
the declaration.
Justice Max Srolowitz was put on the
stand and testified that he succeeded
]. G. Habberield. Colts brought
folded paper and asked him if the sig
nature on it was not Habberfield's s.
Answered that he thought it was Is
familiar with Habberfeld's signature.
On cross-eXamination he said Colts had
frequently come to his Office and exam
ined the dockets of ex-Justice Habber-
field. Colts had showed him the paper
with the signature of John G. Habber-
field ON it on two different occasions.
He could not say positively that the
note was the paper that Colts showed
to him. To Mr.. Myer he said that the
signature TASTED on the declaration was
written on blue line similar TO the
first signature shown to him by Mr..
Colts.
Prosecuting Attorney Meyer was
placed on the stand. The alleged forg-
ed note first came into his possession
at the preliminary examination. BY
much handling the paper or note be-
came worn, and he caused strips to be
pasted on the back by the stenograph-
er, Mr.. Schrader
James Creighton was the next wit
ness examined by the State. He was
the constable for Mr.. j. G. Habberield
Mr. Cots told him he had borrowed
$500 from Habberfeld. Colts said that
he wanted TO pay the note, but the
Squire did not need the money and
would not accept the money. This
was in front OF Habberfelds Office,
and before his death. He identified
the signature posted on the declara-
ton as being the signature OF Habber-
field on a bill Of sale witnessed by
Habberfeld and the witness. He next
saw it after the judgment had been
rendered against Colts. Did not think
it was Habberfeld's signature because
it was written John G.. Habberield.
The paper was unfoided and he then.
=