American Republican and Baltimore daily clipper. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1844-1846, 1846-03-20

| eI ne Knew the signature OF the note IN queS-
ton to be in the writing of MIR. King. The
counsel for the defence objected TO the question
and the District Attorney insisted upon it
Judge Heath decided that the question was
legal one.l file mir. Markle,) from opportu-
mites he had had, thought he could recognise
MIR. Kings hand writing; he believed both the
body ofthe note and the signature to be that of
Mr.. King; the hand writing is very peculiar,
the most peculiar he ever saw; never saw Mr..
King write.
A power of Attorney was here read to the
jury, purporting to be from John Maitland,
(the name which appears as the drawer of the
note,) to Mr. King, authorizing hlm to receive
the money claimed to be due by Jewett to
Maitland.
! DR.. Broadhead, sworn.-Had seen and acted
on letters from MIR. Hing, in relation to affairs
of the Department; was confident OF his know
| ledge ofKing's hand writing; is chief clerk IN
the Office ofthe End Comptroller of the Treasu-
ry at Washington; was shown the note i'll ques
| ton, and believed it to be both the signature
and writing of MIR. King; supposed it to be
forgery from the fact of its being in the hand
writing of Mr.. X tie paper on which the note
was drawn was very clean, and the writing
fresh. A letter dated 18th jan, 1916, was
shown by the District Attorney, which Mr..
!
Treasury, asking if there was any material fact
wanting to enable him to receive the money.
! He (Dr. B. had been in the Office Of the End
| Comptroller of the Treasury, with the eXcep-
ton oftwo years, since 1929, and was familiar
with various writing and signatures.
The District Attorney here designed taking
up another note and proving it also forgery,
but objection was raised by the defence, and
considerable discussion took place. Judge
Heath after hearing the arguments of the coun-
sci, decided that although the transactions were
different, it was competent to offer any other
paper in evidence, provided it could be proven
that the paper was forgery. The Court con-
sequently overruled the objections of the de-
fence.
Henry Smith, sworn.-He had brother in
the service named Washington Smith; 1t is
well enough to state that the several notes were
drawn up in different names, he could not read
or write; he knew his brother well, and was po-
stive he could not read or write; he saw him
die on board the u. S. ship Brandywne, in the
East Indies The second note produced, had
the name of Washington Smith upon it as the
drawor-the first it will be recollected purport-
ed to be drawn by John Maitland.
MIR. Markle was again recalled-The note
was shown hint was received at Washing
ton on the Gath of October, enclosed in let
ter from Mr.. King; the note was drawn in ia
vor of Washington Smith, and dated July 8,
1910; the paper and writing appeared to be
new, and but little handled; believed from his
knowledge Of Mr. Kings hand writing that
the note was written by him; Washington
Smith was Quarter Master on the BTandywine
at the time Of his death.
The Court, at this point of the case, adjourn
ed until Wednesday morning, the Judge par
ticularly nstructing the gentlemen of the jury
not to have converse with any person on the
subject.
WEDNESDAY, March Is. The Court me. at
10 O'Clock.
John Cooper, sWorn.-Knew w. Smith, and
knew that he could not read or write; when IN
port he always boarded at his house; had
known him perfectly we'll for IL or Is years;
knew him to be an illiterate man.
, Mr.. Attorney Marshall, having proven that
w. Smith could not read or write, proposed
proving that the. payee Of the note, James Da-
: Wis, was at the time of the drawing of the
note in the penitentiary of Maryland. He
proposed proving it by parole, but Mr.. Nelson
!, objected to such testimony unless the records
! of the fact were shown, and was sustained by
the Court.
William Mitchell, sworn.-In October last,
James Davis boarded at his house; he had seen
: Mr. King at his house enquiring for Davis; Da-
Wis is the same man who has since been arrest
ed on the charge of being connected with this
affair.
Mr.. - Cauder, sworn.-Mr. King had
called at his house in October and had an in
terview with Davis; some time afterwards Mr..
X. again called at hishouse, and requested him
: to send for Davis, he did SO, and they had a
conversation together.
John Showacre, ESQ, sworn.-Mr. King
: had called on him at his Office on certain
, morning, and left power of attorney, which
Davis short time afterwards called and exc
cuted Mr., King stated to him that he had
called to see Davis but had found him in bed,
but that he would be there to execute the pa
per.
} P. T. Wilson, ESQ.,, sworn.-The power of
attorney which was in evidence on Tuesday,
, was acknowledged and attested before him; it
was done in the name of John Maitland; Matt
land was before him number Of times with
! different papers; MIR. King was present with
} him twice; had seen the person who was ar
. rested, Cat the time Mr.. King was taken into
? custody under the name of James Davis; he
was the same person who was before him I'M
der the name of Maitland; the note in ques-
: ton was signed in the presence of Mr.. King,
Q about the end of December; day or two after
t the matter was brought under judicial investi-
s CATION, Mr.. King had an interview with him,
o in which he stated that this man Davis he
d knew to be the same man who had signed his
g name as John Maitland.
8 The District Attorney produced another note
: bearing date 1910. The defence admitted
: that the man whose name was attached as the
drawer ofthe note, Lewis Marks,) was in
New York at the time the note was dated.
: Mr.. MaIkle, recalled.-He read two letters
e addressed to the Fourth Auditors Department
d asking information in regard to the claim Of
d Marks; the note he believed to have been
d drawn by Mr.. King; it looked like paper Of