Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1907-05-29

the hearing in Chicago. There were
ten witnesses but they added little -
what had been already known OF the
case. They were cross examined rig
idly by Mr.. Shaeffer. but nothing thai
was adroitly brought by Mr.. Feinberg
was controverted.
The first witness was John u
Sweeney OF the First National Bank of
Arizona. He said that he had met De-
Raglan, who called at the bank in the
company of DIR. Rowe and opened an
account. He had given DeRaylau a
signature card to fill out and it had
been done and il was introduced :n1
bore what was recognized as the sig
nature of DeRaylan. Mr.. Sweeney
was not sure that he had seen DeRay-
Ian write his name but he was sure
that 1t could have been written by no
other. He had seen the body of De-
Raglan on the morning following his
death and had recognized it as the
body of his depositor
George HaSeman was the next wit
ness. Mr.. Hageman had been request
ed by DIR. Rowe to call at the Union
hotel TO see man by the name Of
DeRaylan. who wanted some plumbing
done. He had done so. had performed
the work. had received a check in
payment and identified the check
bearing the signature of DeRaylan.
He had also recognized the body of the
dead as that of his own customer.
Cashier Burmister of the Phoenix
National Bank was perhaps the most
interesting witness and went further
toward the Identification OF the Phoe-
nix DeRaylan and the Chicago De-
Raglan as the same. He said that De-
Raglan first called at the bank and
desired to open an account by depos-
iting a lot of checks made payable
To Y. DeRaylan. II is the practice Of
banks in cases of this kind to ascer-
tain whether the person who offers
the checks is legally entitled to pos
session of them. DeRavlan was asked
for references and he gave the firm Of
II. Claussenius & Co. OF Chicago.
bankers. The signature of DeRaylan
was forwarded to the Chicago bank
ers and was properly authenticated.
DeRaylan on the dav before his
death sent for Mr.. Burmister to make
arrangements fer the withdrawal Of
a deposit of about $500 in the Illinois
Trust company Of Chicago. He
said that the money was de-
posted in the name OF Nicholas Kon-
stantinovitch. precaution he had
taken to keep the existence of the de-
posit a secret from his wife He spoke
at some length of his domestic infelici-
ties He told Of an incident which was
interesting but irrelevant He said
that some time before his marriage he
had been in New York where he met
a Polish woman and lived with her for
some time. When he got ready to
return to Chicago she desired to ac-
company him. He offered the objec-
tion that no explanation could be
made to his Chicago friends Of her
presence. The woman told him that
she could be held out to them as his
grandmother" She accompanied him
and they lived together for some time.
rather unhappily. but it does not ap-
pear that they were married. Fin
ally they agreed to separate and De-
Raglan said that a lawyer to whom he
unfolded the story. advised him to go
through the formaIity of getting a di-
vorce That was done.
Mr. Feinberg asked Mr.. Burmister
if DcRaylan had told him the name
of the lawyer who advised this ex-
course. Mr.. Burmister
could not recall the name. Was it
a Mr.. Rocco?7 asked Mr.. Feinberg.
NO" replied Mr.. Burmister; Il
think IT began with an 'S-'
"Shaeffer?" suggested Mr.. Feinberg.
Mr.. Shaeffer Joined in the
l. r.-If. fhfg =a1lN
provoked.
Mr.. Burmister continued with the
story of the transfer Of the Illinois
Trust company deposit. He said that
told him that his pass book
was in the safe of a man by the name
Of ID. Walsh. who by the way was
mentioned in the recent story of The
as the man to whom De-
Raglan had telegraphed from Canon
City. Col. to remove a safe and desk
from his house in the absence Of Mrs.
DeRaylan. who was then with him at
Canon City.
Mr.. Burmister suggested a regular
way Of accomplishing the transfer and
ii was undertaken but when the death
IF DeRaylan intervened the Phoenix
National Bank had wired to Chicago
for the funds to be held there
Mr.. Burmister as all of the Wit
nssses confused the words he and
"she" and his" and "her' in his mar
ration. a distinction of gender about
which Mr.. Shaeffer was rather par
ticular 1t was finally understood that
the witnesses who knew the person
Only in life time might speak Of that
person as a man Mr.. Shaetfer also
insisted upon correcting the state
ments of witnesses by the insertion
into their narrations of alleged" and
"who said"
ferSon who told of the coming of DIR.
Rowe and De Raglan to the Union ho-