New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1842-06-11
WHOLE NO. 366.

in Nrw-O~lssn- IN 1884 and 1882 and not IN
1921 aud 1929. ~ | am reported have said
This crty OF September g. NJ. Edwards, La. in
the Frederick Register should say was not his
writing Thi, in the Baltimore hook do rot
think !, IN his handwriting y has some resepi-
blance ~ II. however; the Ia. appears 10 BE-
hi- the letter on which tie Indictment J. brought
does not. in my opinion. resemble any writing
winch have ever received ;r"m Mr. Edwards.
and observe on y no mars IN this letter which
resembles any MARKS by which | distinguish his
hand should not 'ay thar tho signature to this
letter VI. m the haud-vritir~ OF Edwards. ! see
10 resemblance between 10 and his tdIaary hand ;
the Frederick ,burch letter dated September l. ac
know lodging the receipt OF ian draft. &c from
Brown. Brothers \ Co. docs not seem to me 10
be- In Edward, handwriting. nor do know whose
n i: the filling up of The Bill. OF Exchange
drawn by Caldwell IN Marnscl White \ Co. Ia
favor II Brown. Brother, 4 Co. do not know
IN tic order tor cotton. signed Juo. !. Caldwell.
,ee nothing That resembles the hand-writD. vt
Edwards nor i the letter from Alexandria. dated
AQsu.t2j. enclosing the order tor cotton md the
Bill, of E>chlusc; the letter OF II. :. Hill
should say WAS not IN Mr.. Edwards hand-~rit-
ing: do not know in whose handwriting any
or, of the endorsements Jno. i. Caldwell e.
these checks | sec no resemblance To that OF
,lr. Edwards.
Cross-eramiHcl by Mr.. Whitinc-Ihis writing
(hnndcd To wirncss) should think rcscmbled not
the writing of Mr.. Edward--rhoush thought 1t
did nj ir.t-but that OF Hugh y. Hill. | DO not
recognize TIL, writing (handcd to him) as that OF
Mr. Edwards. | should think il ~. not his.
This third raper (handed) should think wa. in
h, hand writing.
Mr.. Hall asked whether these papers were sub
mitied that an opinion mi sht be given by witness
on comparison ct the two.
The District Attorney SAID both were genuin"
papers.
The Court .aid il the papers were in evidences
the comparison Nigh, 10 made.
The District Attorney SAID they were nsr intro
duced a evidence.
The Court sand the papers then did not tall I'M
der the rule.
The District Attorney then said hs would first
prove the letters. and on asking the witness to
look AT the whole of the first paper handed Ia him
and say in whose writing II was.
Witness said il was in the hand Of Mr. Edwards |
BAT mus, have been written under great agitation
SILL he would not say thar twas in his hand at all
and would rather sly il was not The third pa |
per handed to him, on looking at It, The whole OF 1t
witness think. l. in the handwriting OF Edwards
NJ. Hall read from Riscoe u rule that in such
case. the Cour, and jury might compare the hand
writing but the witness must not. lie excepted To
the ruling of the Court that the witness might I'M
der the present circumstances, after the letters
had been proved. compare the letters
The District Attorney for the purpose ct prov
ing them submitted the letters 10 the witness
The second one handed to him witness thinks is
in the hand writing of Mr. Edwards, but he Is
somewha, confused by looking at 50 many papers
and cannot say positively \ fourth letter he
thinks is written by Edwards. A fifth letter sub
mitted he thinks written by Edwards, but
would rather look nj II again. / be- word teT IN
tho forged letter Is spelled fer. IL Is 40 spelled
in the letter signed Caldwell and written from
Frederick sburg.
After some time spent in examining tina letters
Mr. Hall Tor the defence asked the District Attorney
To state the purpose for which he introduced the
letters Mr. Hoffman said il was for the purpose
Of showing that the words fer. BREATHE sacrifice
and some others were s-elt nike. ana with the
same errors in the letter signed Hugh ) Hill 50
a. Ia show that the letters were written by the
same person.
Nr. Price objected to the introduction of thu
evidence. saving that letters not connected IN any
way with thi, cause. except in the spelling OF
word. could not be- here introduced.
The Court .aid that letters might be- introduced
since bv shutting thrm ont some slight but ma,eri-
Al evidence Of fraud nigh, be excluded.
The Counsel for the defence took exception -
The District Attorney here read the letters The
first was dated London. Jan 20. 1871. and was
directed to John =. Smith. Esq. twas an apPcaI
cr him to relieve him from "A small debt which be-
lwed him and could not pay. he offered hi,
watch a, security and thought 1t hard that he
VI lud be- kept in London. II was not az all ma
era to tho case except in the point mentioned.
The second wa, dated at Philadelphia July %,
1911 1t was addressed - friend. and va,
merely private friendly letter. 1t spoke OF IN
1inlne,. from Roswell saving that he supposed he
would have nothing farther 10 do with hun. he
!. ord fer wa. spelled in il fer. He 'nld that
~ had any friend, he would ,end him some but
- found he had not enough to pay the expenses Of
lim-elf and Mi-- kiuy.' and would have to send
q the Old Dominion for a connie of hundred.
The third wa. dated Philadelphia, sept 10
I.ll. and va, addressed 20 Henry ~ Wild. Esq.
Columbia Co. y. Y. He SAID he was in town
sith hi. pocket full Of rocks e. that he had
,len,y Of ca.h, and thu, Richard was himself
,cain He sad he wa, among his very iew
Iend.. and he wished him to spend few day.
yirh him. He told him to address him At Mrs.
Phillips, Philadelphia, and hat he was 'oon go
ng South.
The nsx, addressed to the same person and
lated
PILA 2ith Sept lsi
DR H.RRY-Yr valued favor of the 22d Is Just reed
ofdng - great peasure know hat you are stu IN ,he
ving amongst thu 81 my friends, IA would " super
iyo1. IN for ne 10 make any statement Of my feeling. 10
4 ard, yr.eL know well enough 10 uno~ista
ltrre heart sit gives me- no lit,Ie hi,si i
,b,, vos cannot come over before the is proxino
bope Won will reconsider this determination Neo." -
.Xceedng wei. to slikr you Dy The hard one bs,.
would rot frr~gO that pleasure : "rfr ""'
~ Imperative business -. q. m g,ng,r H. |
L. gard - going south think tbere I, ~ q
acme Ire I, - Oct as shall oniy pas ~ - -
,o,- have noihn spprekend IN 800 o. nias,Ti,
- he satisfied sssn assure ysu Of NV operation.
., Won soud lar exceed thr limits o. a. g.nap
s,ter .h. therefore reserve ps,'ic ~ III,
~ - LING vou IN person. - only morning vs.
p!rasIfs - % y 10 hi. city and why, can't you Jas