Semi-weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1852-1853, 1853-07-06


either in producing the death Of the oil man, the
forgery and substitution ofthe paper writing, or
subornation of the witnesses, believing him to
be an honest and high minded gentleman, whose
character had not been sullied here by the breath
of any witness, or any particle Of the evidence;
the old gentleman might have complained of his
prodgality and extravigance-and where was the
friend he had upon whom the bitter jibing of his
tongue had not been bestowed ?-but it was in
direct evidence that the DIR. was not a bankrupt
he was the owner of both lands and negroes, and
had fair practice physician in the section of
country in which he resided
We must not forget to notice, complicated as
this case was, and contradictory the testimony
seemed to be, that several gentlemen called in
to examine the paper called will, as erperts or
professional judges of handwriting: namely,
Messrs. Charles Dewey, Ii. b. Nettleton, E. B.
Freeman, and d. S. Richardson; the first of
whom, Mr.. Dewey from marks scratches Of
the pen he had discovered in the letters, testified
that it was simulated or traced writing. and not
the usual or genuine handwriting of anybody.
The last three witnesses convinced that there
were no traces or marks in the paper. which were
not often made by writers-proceeding either
from the character of the pen, the manner in
which it was held in writing, the color and pro-
perties of the ink or the texture of the paper
Mr.. Freeman had seen the marks in his own hand,
and particularly in the writing of New-York
correspondent; Mr.. Richardson had detected it in
the touching Of the letters in the copies of his pu
pills, and had learned to distinguish it from the
abrasion of the pen common to many writings !;
and Mr.. Nettleton explained from experience in
the practice of his art he detection of forged or
counterfeit bills,) the reasons which led him to
the conclusion that this was NATURAL and genu-
inc, and not a copied or traced hand The seve-
raj gentlemen who addressed the Court as coun-
sci for the plaintiff dwet long upon this part Of the
testimony, arguing that though, from authorities
which they read from the books, but little reli-
ance could be placed upon this kind of testimony,
yet its weight was in their favor, and, added to
the other testimony they had presented and en-
forced, entitled them to a verdict at the hands of
the jury, sustaining the validity of this will in
tended to be of posthumous operation.
! For the caveators, the argument was led off by
PERRIN BusBEE, Esq, followed by Hons. W. A.
produced witnesses of kin, and personal init
mate friends of deceased, who confidently testified
from knowledge obtained by correspondence and
many examinations of his writing, that this paper
was not his hand. Its general appearance was
owned by some of them to resemble it-but ac-
cording to one of the witnesses it had not the
genuine honest blush" which marked it for his.
The counsel contendcd, first, that the paper was
not testamentary i'll its character; second, it was
not his usual and natural handwriting third it
was never published as his will; fourth, there was
no finding or, if there were, no evidence it was
ever placed by him among his valuable papers as
his will; and, fifth, that this paper was opposed
to all the declarations of his life with respect to
the disposition of his property. The plaintiff
must make out something more that prinaa facie
case. Upon him rests the laboring oar-the
maintenance of the affirmative in the case; and
counsel contcnded that they had thrown great
doubts over the integrity of this instrument which
the jury should give them the benefit of, in max
! ing up their verdict The examination of the tes-
timony was close and long; and it was strenuously
lcontended that the law would never permit tes-
tator to pass by his next of KIM and give his pro-
perty to another, upon writing so imperfect and
| informal as this. But we must draw our article
| to close.
| We feel free to say that we have seldom or never
heard more able and effective speeches than those
delivered by the counsel on either side. Great
ability, extensive research, deep learning and the
evidence of much attention and study, marked the
effort Of each gentleman and we are informed
that the cause occupied the longest time which has
ever been given to one in North Carolina.
The argument closed about o'clock on Thurs
day evening last and the Judge then occupied
about an hour in charging the jury. He explain
ed the law, as applicable to the case, and com
mented briefly upon the principal points of the
evidence. The charge appeared to be fair and
impartial, and was listened to by all with deep at
tention. We confess we gathered from it no bias
of the Judge, either one way or the other.
The jury had permission to consult awhile, anJ
then disperse, to reassenble Friday morning when
chey came into the Court and rendered verdict
in favor of the plaintiff, establishing the VIII O
David Outlaw.
The counsel for the caveators prayed an appeal
to the Supreme Court, and had leave of time fol
drawing it up in proper form. We understand
two grounds were mainly relied upon. First thai