Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-07-03

came to the house on different occa-
sions. They came to the house and In
quired for her father; said they wanted
to settle up the note. Her father had
gone to Drydens Office. They said they
would go on down, as they wanted to
sign the bond and get the matter set
tied She also said that an unknown
man had called at the house on several
different evenings to see Mr.. Colts. She
was present at the civil suit and saw
| Mr.. Dryden present the folded paper
and heard Haberfeld say, That is my
fathers signature" She also said that
the folded paper was the note and that
the alleged forged note was the one
shown to A. K Haberifeld in the civil
suit.
On cross-examination by Mr.. Meyer,
she said that the Habarfleld boys had
been at the house and they and her
father had talked about the note and
her father had offered to settle it If
they would secure him against the note
if it ever turned up. Her father had
said that the note did not draw in
terest. 1t had been paid in advance.
At the time the note was made her
father had spoken of two notes. The
first note was made to draw interest,
and as the interest was paid in adj
vance he had taken it up and given an
other note that did not draw interest.
She was cross-examined regarding
the strange man who called at her
fathers house, but nothing was
brought out regarding his identity or
his connection with the case
When Mr.. Meyer questioned the wit
ness regarding her relations with her
husband, the defense objected and the
defendant made threats against Mr..
Meyer The sheriff was called upon to
quiet the disturbance. Mr.. Meyer ask
! ed for protection, as he had overheard
Mr.. Colts use improper language re-
garding him. The court directed that
the defendant remain quiet, or he
would cause him to be imprisoned UNI
til he could control himself.
G.. r. e. Gilchrist was present at the
preliminary hearing and had seen a
signature said to be John G. Haber
| fields. He does not consider himself
an expert, but can guess. The State
objected to his evidence and was sus-
tanned by the court, and he was ex-
cused from the stand
Miss Edith Colts, daughter of the de-
PENDANT, was in Wheeling at the time
of the civil suit. Was at the trial be-
fore Squire Rodgers Saw Dryden pre-
S ent the folded paper to A. K. Haber-
field, and heard Haberfield say the sig
nature was his fathers. She also saw
Mr.. Dryden and Mr.. Colts go into the
back room and examine the note. She
saw the paper unfolded and saw the
stamp on it.
On cross-examination she said that
! Robinson demanded the signature. Her
father refused at first, but finally sig
nature was torn off paper and given
to the squire, who pasted it upon the
| declaration.
She said she was not present at the
civil suit on January 20, but that the
| signature was shown at the prelimin-
airy hearing in February.
/ The defendant, w. J. Colts, was next
called and examined by Col. Arnett. He
had known J. G. Haberfield for several
years. Had borrowed 5000 of him July
81, 1899. He borrowed it to use in
purchasing the Amanda Holmes pro-
perty. He received on the note $685.
| The note called for 5000 with interest
from date. The next day he remem-
bered that he had paid the note in
advance and made another note and
went to Haberfield and told him about
the mistake, and Haberfield said he had
| thought of the same thing, but had
| left the note at his house, but would
destroy the first note. He supposed it
| had been destroyed until W. P. Rob
inson produced it in Rodgers office.
He had been to see Mr. Haberfeld
during his sickness. Had proposed to
settle up their business, but Mr.. Hab-
eraeld said he would be upon the
streets again in few days and they
would settle up then. Haberfield said
he did not know just where the note
was. Haberf1eld asked him to tell Jim
Creighton to bring his docket up, as he
wanted to finish writing it up. He
afterward learned from Creighton that
it had been fixed.
After the funeral he told Mrs Joseph
Haberfeid that he owed the money and
wanted to pay it off. He had gone to
A. X. Haberfield and told him the
same. He said he would do all he
could to help find the note. He had
gone to several banks and inquired
about the note, but failed to find it
The Haberfelds did not know there
was any note in existence. He advised
the boys to advertise the note After
this he met a man who asked If he was
w. ]. Colts. Said yes" The man
said he had note of his, but did not
produce it. He said he sent letter to
A. X. Haberfield telling him that he
thought they could settle the matter.
He told him on the street that after
noon, and told him that he thought he
could put him on the track of the note.
Advised him to look the matter up,
and if it YVES not the lost note that he
would pay the note if they (Haber-
| fields) would give him an indemnifying
bond, Haberfield's boys came down to
Dryden's office. His evidence on this
part agreed with and was practically
the same as the evidence of Mr.. Dry
den ;also that part of his evidence re-
| garding the meeting of Haberfield on
| Market street the next evening.
| He was sued for the amount of a note
dated July 21, 1899. He denied owing
a note of such description, but judg-
ment was rendered against him. AT
this trial he had given folded paper
to Mr.. Dryden, who showed it to Hab-
! ert1eld, who said it was the signature
of his father. The evidence here agreed
with that of Mr.. Dryden and John Will
liams. He told of showing the de-
tached signature to Jim Creighton, and
of Creighton saying that the signature
was Haherheld'S