The Lake County times. [volume] (Hammond, Ind.) 1906-1933, 1910-01-15

nnt He didn't say she shouTl
ha an sign the card and the card was
cross xa min WITH the signature. or
sa IN this case; helped to get as m s s,1 !,
abo ma lures res as he could; that ali talked
man among the rest Iobmsn e. a; Loh
ho aS opposed to saloons: that too ma me ne
ruined t Hu loo many young men were
papers. "0 sisheo such
Jaws His Wife.
,nan i IL g. KUNERT testified Iob-
r nan sotd him that he did not sign the
1t p and he jawed her after S ARDS signed
that aEI IoHHM3sN t BeA,aRIRINGER testified
signed the card; that he 1 w. ne never
s lzed his name to be signed and u,noa
words to ms tb name ses to any power or
testified substantially as did Rsrrtr.1ar
al me S,i testimony of Kunert. BarrtnS sr.
froduea elie for Is ;b as all lawyers know. IN
Lohman by an efrort to 81 sbo o1Seftesditing
MADE statements out of court com4ne
eonei nass m fhst in court II it we're
successful in that behalf. II does On cen
en- egsSf en- the weight which must be CIV Nv.
Granting In this a maf Shafer and Hay
as.eIendants claim for it. the sviden the
user co3nclusively shows that Iohman
piring. knew the efrect his " si srans-
c pnaced upon the card under those cire
"a fI,,ra ~ YOU'D nave. and by his
a@ hts 70 OBJECT acquiesced in the act
81 i, Ills wlIe. One cannot stand by and,
and "a. an "a act to be done in his name
act This is putting the case anat
strongly for the defense. MOST
VIE ths court Is quite satisfied from tbe
Passive instrument in his wife's HANDS
ne conclusion is Irresistible ard th
A. , activ .anees prove that he was more
on No ,sa passlee sDe'ta-
~ 20 .--.. HENRY DAVIS !
~ HE mr. DAVIS testifes that he did
agned by his daughter but not IN w has
= Sssnce, mat he was upstairs in bed |
' s,,g come home from his iabors and
lis room and said: aDeueI wa asne into
7 airs te,d ana wanted me to sign a card.
ant say yer ce i9 g9 down .. and sign it:
sriting but think my name was s1snea n
and fn nrit card by her and in her own Vn
he soth f''d day Of AZ 4nr this happened on
nows that afterwards. on the nert
ay' or May 1st.. Davis and his daurh- \
er having signed his name to fha i ~ 70 n
s Ut lot r. some reason what was said
'ction Of nI AYE 6esa excluded on the OBJ
3 aIt ter defendants introduced
lst;nn HuBBINGER as a witness V wbo a.
le transaction, above related said - te
m that he. DAVIS. never signed id tho 5e G
-, irUf authorized his daughter ~
sn. Ine evidence shows concll1sive
mat Davis name was signed r. ~
rd under circumstances which mehee n
his act; that afterwards. in amn1e &c
ne TO withdraw his signature hal h
Desired, he had knowledge throroh ~
conversation with his dauphter II
nich while what was said II NOE he
re the court, presumptively was snf
lent TO have pus him on his guard -
We Wllhdrawn his name had he haeu 4
ssatlsHed While on the w;4nas.
.nd ne did not dispute the act which
aced his name upon the card as his
-ance. ~ TIC remon-
NO. John r>opII
~. zzo- ------. JAMES DOW INC i
FIRST as to JOHN DOWLING.
an Dowling's Testimony. II
After qualifying on residence b.
O the caro- was presented by John
lrs, who had both cards ana reron /
ance. that he read the card and XIII
TED TO the power of attorney bptl
signed the remonsfrann
RS said they had plenty Of saloons {
the remonstrance was to nrevens / Z
further licenses for two years. u
w what was signing. This MAJ -
himself qualities TnTYN Te(>vr1r 1 L