The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1900-02-03
HEARING Oh g0ITS
Begun Yeste1day Afternoon Before
Justice Rogers, ana i
CONTINUED IONEXT THURSDAY
Four witnesses Were Examined, and
the Case Is Somewhat Complicated.
The Defense Finds Encouragement
From the Testimony Of q. B. 2.
ailchrist-Tho Two Notes Were
Produced, and Figured In the case.

The hearing Of the case OF the state
against W. J. Cots on n forgery
charge was begun before Squire Rogers
Yesterday afternoon, and was continued
until next Thursday ut q. M, and the
defendants bond. for $500 WIS left UNI
changed. Only four witnesses were ex-
amIned, but objections and wTangles
between counsel made the taking OF
testimony drag.
AS stated In the Intelligencer yester-
day, Cotts is charged with forging the
name Of the late Squire John q. Haber-
field; that he had given his note for
5000, which he had borrowed from the
deceased, and when the note could not
be found after Haberheld's death, Cots,
In defending an action instituted by
Andrew K. Haberfeld. administrator OF
his fathers estate, produced q note,
which ne alleged to be the original
paper, but which b asserted to not be
genuine. since a few days ago what IS
purported to be the real paper turned
up in the keeping Of the city bank,
where It had been deposited by Squire
Haberfeid.
Nessrs, Dryden, Schuck and Colonel
Arnett. and the states case was looked
after by Prosecuting Attorney Meyer
and w. P. RoblnRon. The night was
waged over the signature and hand
writing Of Squire Haberheld and W. ],
Colts. as inStanced In certain papers
put in evidence.
The first witness was r. c, DalZell.
cashier Of the City bank, who told OF
the discovery at the bank one day ear
lIer in the week. Of an envelope con-
tanning Haberfeld's name, and which
when opened disclosed a note from w.
j, Cots for 500. The note was turned
over to Andrew K Haberheld by Henry
K. List.
son. attorney for the Haberfeld estate
IN suit brought against Cots for the
payment Of the $500, and he stated that
the alleged forged note was hrst seen
By him in Squire Rogers court on
Thursday, whereupon he had flashed
the note turned over by hr. List q day
or two previous. The dates on the
revenue stamps on the notes were DIFF
ferent.
Andrew K. HabeFheld teSCnleu as 70
with Cots regarding pay
ment Of the money loaned by his tather
and the subsequent proceedings. Cots
had told the witness that the note wit
ness had failed to find among his
fathers effects was in the hand Of
woman across the creek and that
"Jim" Creighton could tell him AL
about It. This ID the note that Cots
N1feT nroduced
The last witness Of the day was
George r. e. Gilchrist, who was tamlls
lar with the handwriting Of W. ]. Colts.
He thought the face Of the two notes
had been written by Cots, and that the
endorsement on the one note endorsed
was written probably by the person
who wrote the envelope found in the
city bank. Mr.. GIlchrist saw a siml-
liarity in the name 'Haberheld" on the
notes, but one was pred4ed by John
c." ii, the endorsement while It was
a, G." otherwise. Afr. GllchE4st's con-
cIuslons were not unmixed with doubt,
but they were favorable to the detense's
case. The fact Of there being two
notes. however, is a point on which the
state will turn Its guns.