Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1902-04-12
ANOTHER VIEW
Continued from md page. part twoJ

continued from -nu DHg', part lNoJ
estate an equal amount oi this SlOO,-
900 wifi themselves. Aud Mr. Baird
In his testimony Oh the hearing Of this
motion admitted that this was done
bccnusc he had agreed that it should
be done. with Mr.. Mcfarlln prior to
the lattcr's death. He certainly show.
cd commendablc gratitude in thus re-
menberlng the family of the man
who. according TO his own testimony,
performed the work of securing the
signature to this will. and arranging
with the witness Aungst to furnish
the testimony as TO the execution
thereof.
And vet with all this testimony in
reference 10 the strenuous efforts on
the part of these men to secure the
making of this will. the payment of
this 5000 note, which no man who
was familiar with MI Cornell ever
believed that he executed, the will
itself placing the disposition Of this
vast estate In the hands Of these men
and giving them unlimited power to
dispose of 1t i'm any way they might
deem fit: permitting them TO pur-
chase the whole or any part of it
one from the other, upon their own
terms. requiring 10 bond, the bringing
| in by McFarlin of character such
as Aungst to nurse this old man, a
man who had had no experience as
nurse. charging these alleged illegal
and eXorbltant fees and the numerous
other alleged acts of fraudulent and
corrupt conduct as shown by this evil
| denCe, does not. according TO the idea
of the honorable judge, make the
shadow of case" and there is no
onc except myself that believes any
of these charges.
Many men have been convicted of
the most grave and serious violations
of law on evidence not half SO salts
factory or convincing. Men have
paid the penalty of crime with their
lives when the testimony from which
their guilt was determined was of much
less satisfactory character than that
produced in this case.
There is no need. however, of fur
ther comment along this line.
should not have undertaken to rush
into public print in defense of my
side of this case had it not been for
the language of.the court directed to-
ward me, and me alone.
The public has no concern in the
private disputes between myself and
wife OH one hand and the executors
of the Cornell estate on the other but
as these executors Were able to sup
press comment so far at least as one
of our local papers was concerned, on
the evidence brought forth ut the trial
of this case, and as they have now
undertaken to use the columns of the
public press for the purpose of spread
l,,N Il ,f 1i
court and setting il up as a complete
vindication of themselves, | feel that
| should he entitled TO like hearing
before the public and no one should
condemn me for being II wanton and
reckless traduccr of character until
he has heard all the evidence.
The case Is ended. The court has
rendered its decision and my attorneys
tell me that in II matter of this kind
there is no appeal to Il higher tribu-
nal
| am not able to state whether or not
the honorable judge knew this fact
when he was hearing the case and de-
Gliding the same. This knowledge
might possibly have had something
to do with the rendering of Il de-
cision, which am sure every fair
minded man, had he heard the entire
testimony. would have said was en-
tircly unsupported either by evidence
OF law.
Even the court dared not balance
4 the testimony of Aungst on the same
scale with that of Mrs. Paige. He
! throws out the Aungst testimony en-
tirely With it left out because even
4 the honorable judge thought it too
rank to be considered at all, there is
not a shadow of evidence left to sup
port the execution of this forged instru-
ment. no matter how anxious the Judge
Y was to give it support. The court can
only maintain its own opinion by ig-
4 noring all the testimony of the most
I unimpeachab,c witnesses and by an
4 ATTEMPT wholly unworthy of any hon
a n,oblo Inn.b N critipicn thn prnSp-