Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-06-29
ON Trial FOR FORGERY.
<
THE EVIDENCE IN THE W. J.
COTS CASE BEING HEARD IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT AT
M0UNDSvILLE.
NUMBER OF STATE WITNESSES
Gave Their Testimony Yesterday.
The Trial VIII Be Resumed This
Morning and q Night Session of
the Court IL q Probability-A
Synopsis of the Evidence Pre-
scented Yesterday.

fiiiC. HCduCio VI Inc nCSiSeol diO
familiar with the case. 1t is the out
growth of a financial transaction be-
tween Colts and the late John G.. Hab-
berfield, ]. P. Colts gave his note for
borrowed money, and when the Hab-
berfield heirs attempted to collect the
money, presented a written document
showing that he paid it, with the sig
nature of Habberield attached. The
signature is alleged to be a forgery.
When the case was called In the Ohio
county Criminal Court, Colts secured
a change of venue, hence the trial of
the case in Moundsville.
The jury selected to try this case
was composed of the following per-
sons: F. B. Kootz, Gilmore Lyons,
Theodore Buzzard, Edward Britt,
Frank Culley, Ed. Jones, Bernard
Ward, James Higgins, Wylie M. Riggs,
Joseph Fox, w. A. Boomer and S. NJ.
Lowery.
The attorneys for the State are
Prosecuting Attorney Meyer, of Ohio
county, and S. o. Boyce, and the de-
PENDANT is represented by Col. Arnett
and NJ. F. Dryden.
The first witness called for the State
is the administrator of his father, John
G.. Habberfeld's estate. He said that
the first time he saw the defendant was
on Market street, in Wheeling, about
three weeks after his fathers death.
They talked about a note Of $500 and
Colts wanted to pay it but the note
could not be found. Nothing was said
about there being two notes. Colts
advised him to advertise the note as
being lost, which would prevent its
being sold. He had gotten all his
fathers papers from the banks and
had not found the note. Later he 7aw
Colts near the City Building and was
told to come to Colts and he would be
put on the track of the note. Went
down but Colts did not tell who had
the note, but said a woman below the
creek could tell. At this point in the
testimony a letter from Colts referring
to the lost note was offered in evidence
and also one in which Colts presented
a bill amounting to $S7.37 for judg-
ments assumed by the deceased.
He next saw Colts at Dryden's office
when Colts wanted him to sign a bond
to secure him in case the note should
be found. He took the bond with him
for his brother to see, but they refused
to sign 1T and returned it to Dryden's
Office, but both Colts and Dryden re-
fused to accept it. He left the bond
with w. P. Robinson, his attorney.
After the bond was returned his lawyer
advised him to again see Colts, which
he did, but Colts refused to pay the
amount and he then entered suit in
Squire Rodgers court and obtained
judgment for 5000. Nothing was said
at the trial about the existence of an
other note. Another letter was identi-
fed by the witness and was offered in
evidence. This letter was a notice of
a %rehearing of the case. Was not at
the rehearing. After the trial before
Squire Rodgers he received a card from
the cashier Of the City Bank Of Wheel
ing telling him to come down. Went
down and Mr.. Dalzell opened an en-
velope he had found in the vault. 1t
contained two notes. One was the
Colts note, the other was a note drawn
by John F. Richardson. He took the
Colts note down to his attorney. He
was familiar with his fathers sigma
ture and identified it on the envelope
and also the slip pasted on the declara-
ton. He first saw the note in dispute
at w. P. Robinson's Office. Said that
the endorsement on the back of the
note was not his fathers writing.
On the o examination he said he
did not know of his father loaning
money to Colts until after his fathers
death. He was asked if Colts did not
tell him he vas going on the road as
salesman and wanted to pay the note
before going away. Denied. He de-
MED asking Colts to get an indemnify
ing bond, but said Colts asked security
if the note ever turned up. He denied
that money was shown by Colts In Dry
den's Office, but said that Dryden had
insisted on his taking a part of the
money. He was positive that the sig
nature or endorsement on the note was
not his fathers writing. When ques-
toned on this he pointed out a num-
Der of letters in the alleged signature
which were not identical in form with
his fathers genuine signature.
He did not swear out a warrant TO
collect the debt, for he had already
obtained judgment, but because he be-
lieved the endorsement had been
forged. He thought the original note
was the one he got at the bank. A
man named Bradford came to North
Wheeling glass house and took him
down to RobinSon's Office in a hack.
Robinson told him what had happened
and he swore out the warrants. He
did not know that Bradford and Cots
had any trouble. A question in regard
TO Bradford renting houses in Alley C
was objected TO by the State and sus-
tanned. Denied saying to Amanda
Holmes or John Williams that he knew
the endorsement on the note was his
fathers writing, but he intended to
railroad Cots TO the penitentiary.
H. H. Ingling. a photographer, of
Wellsburg, was called, and identified
photographs Of paper. notes and en-
velopes in the possession of r. H.
Hammond. These photographs will be
offered in evidence. Objections were
made to them by the defense, but was
deferred.
Howard Clark, cashier of the News