Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1900-07-01
COTS CASE CONTINUES
TO OCCUPY THE ATTENTION OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MAR
SHALL COUNTY.
THE TESTIMONY YESTERDAY
fcnse-Expert Testimony ON Hand
writing Offered-The Case VIII
Probably be Concluded and Go to
the Jury on Monday.

| fcnSe-Experf Testimony on mana
writing Onered-The Case VIII
Probably be Concluded and Go to
the Jury on Monday.
The examination of witnesses in the
| Colts case was continued yesterday
morning in the Circuit Court of Mar
| shall county. T. H. Hammond. treas
urer of the S. George Company, was
put on the stand and cross-examined
by Col. Arnett. He said he received
| $40 for his testimony in this case ex-
| elusive of his fees as witness. This
| included his examination at his home,
cost of photographs and all other ex-
penses incurred by him. He did not
form his testimony for the side that
employed. him, but would give his evil
! dence regardless of either side. He
had given Mr.. Meyers a written report
of his examination, not to furnish
grounds for the questions to be asked.
but because he had no opportunity to
tell Mr.. Meyers personally the results
| of the examination. He would have
| given the defense the same report, but
would not have reported favorably for
the defense. He only had two sigma
! lures of the deceased upon which to
base his opinion in this case. He ex-
planned the characteristics of Mr.. Hab
berfield's writing and the signatures
were examined by the jurors. The
witness admitted that the 1ames of
j. G. Habberfield written m he face
of the notes by Mr.. Colts we're some
what similar to the genuine Signature.
/ He said that forged signatures are
usually traced and cannot be discov-
cred without the use of powerful
glasses. He proposed to illustrate the
! meaning of traced signatures, but was
objected to by Col. Arnett. He said
that one can write two signatures ex-
actly alike. He said no person can re-
produce another's signature without
leaving his characteristics in the form
of the letters of the forged signature.
He then explained the characteristics
of Mr.. Habberfields and Mr.. Colts sig
natures, and pointed out the differences
in the formation of letters. He fur
Their said that different letters admit
ted to have been written by Mr. Colts
were identical with some letters in the
alleged forged signature. He did not
know that he was to appear as wit
ness until he received his summons on
last Monday.
The State rested and NJ F. Dryden
was sworn. He had known ". J. Colts
for three or four years. He was his
attorney. He first saw the Habberfield
boys on the case December Is, 1899.
That day he drew up the bond at the
request of Mr.. Colts. After supper the
Habberfield boys, (Andrew K. and Jo-
seph), and the defendant were at his
office. Colts said he had borrowed
5000 from ]. G. Habberfeld. The note
was lost, but if the Habberfelds would
allow him a claim of about S84 he
would pay the balance The witness
! read the bond at the request of the
parties present. Mr.. Colts objected to
the phrase with interest" and the
witness scratched it out. Mr.. Colts
produced some money and offered to
pay the difference if the Habberfelds
would sign the bond to protect him in
! case the note should be found They
wanted their brother William to see it
and took the bond with them. Colts
said that he had an intimation that the
! note was in the possession of a woman
in Centre Wheeling. The Habberfelds
| promised to sign and return the bond
| and settle the matter as proposed if
there were satisfied with the bond.
He and Mr.. Colts met A X Haberfeld
on Market street few days later and
Haberfield said they were not satisfied
with the bond and offered it to Colts. who
Ta tn a
to take it. At this time Colts again pro-
posed to settle 1t, but Haberfield moved
on Dryden had urged that an amicable
settlement be made, but had not asked
Haberfield to take part of the money.
He was Colts attorney at the civil
suit in Squire Rogers's court At this
trial Colts produced a folded paper and
told him to ask A. K. Haberfeld whose
signature was on 1t. Haberfield said it
was his fathers. Colts took the paper
which witness afterward learned was the
note in dispute. Haberfield's attorney
demanded the paper, but was refused
because it was not in evidepce. Colts
then tore the signature off of another
paper and said that he would put that in
evidence. This signature was posted up
on the declaration.
He would not let the note be put in
evidence at the trial before Rogers be-
cause the suit was to recover the amount
of lost note and as he did not think it
had been proven to be lost, he thought
the justice would dismiss the suit
On cross examination by Mr.. Boyce, he
said that he had heard several prominent
citizens speak well of Mr. Cotts's integ-
rity and honesty. He secured the change
of venue because of the feeling against
Mr.. Colts. but not, however, on account
of his honesty.
He did not recall telling Mr. w. P
Robinson that he did not intend to have
anything to do with the old rascal be-
cause he had two notes.
He did not urge the motion for new
trial because he was sick, and the sec
ond motion was made by Col Arnett
He did not allow a. K Haberfield to
have the folded paper. 1t was given
back to Mr.. Colts. He allowed another
signature to go in evidence in the civil
action because Mr.. Colts did not choose
to give up the signature he had shown, as
it would destroy the note.
D. Gutman, ]. A Jefferson, Dr. Ridg-