The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-02-18
The Norwalk Bank Case.

THE QUESTION or COMPARISON OF HANDWRITING
TESTIMONY AS TO TIE IDENTITY OF SIGNATURES.
The examination Of the Norwalk Bank case was con-
nued yesterday at the Grand Jury ROOM before United
States CommiesioneT K. G. White
Mr. Francis s. Dyer sworn-Keeps an oyster saloon,
No "a Will ans street, defendant worked for him from
four TO six weeks, three months ago. paid him 50
week the FIRST two weeks, and then, business getting
slack defendant agreed 10 stay for So advertised for
partner some three four weeks ago. Williams in
and asked witness II he would sell out the whole Of
his business they hung on to bargain about o week,
and finally witness offered to sell for certain sum-
which he did not to state, "fcr fear would inure
his business when he wanted to sell out again" (Mr
Busteed insisted upon knowing this su argued the mat
at length, objected to he whole Of this evidence and
all hands talked the matter with each other the
witness Witness had sman vat going to buy him
out y he received a check from Will
lam, for s4oo upon the Citizens Bank, sign
ed I" James Simpson I" could NOT satisfy Will
Hams about The lease OF the ssloon and therefore
returned the cheek to him; Mr.. Basteed repeated his
question 70 the prcc for the salo0a; the
ruled the question its motion; Mr. B. moved TO
strike out the whole of this testimony the motion
refused
George II Graff s~ofn-In January last Williams Of
ered him $500 for dining saloon, which he then owned
are an h.s e o sod 70 say the ra.
orney offered TO prove that Williams wished these papers
drawn up under another name, but ths evidence
ruled out
Thomas Gsfney sworuResides In Thirty third street:
knows defendant about fourteen msnths defendant as
sisted him in his Office (Mr G. real estate agenl for
time Williams wrote and signed the nouce OF the
dissolution Of oopars0ersh3 previously introduced aad
given at length IN Our repor,s) has seen Williams write,
and acquap ted HIS hand writing Williams wrote in
his books: WI aess recognized Williams writing book
OF auction saes which was Produced Nj 1olbrook sub
pened witness told him TO bring all OF Williams writing
he could ind could defendant wsits Gale at
which the book d.
The question of toe adnassibty of evidence to prove
the detend ants hand STDg by comparison then DIS
c'ssed, and authorities quoted upon both sides Judge
fancy (Uned States Va Reed, II Howard, 36D decides
that the rules OF evidence in federal those which
held in the different States At the time whea federal courts
we're established, auJ these those of the
Law in England In that country however, the decisions
upon the ndnissbiity OF comparisons Of handwriting
we're varied, but e xe 5iS) the result is given
as unsvorable to saeh admissions In this Greooaeld
aapissible by the State laws OF New York. In some
sates-Masfachuset,s Tor inssancethe ruling differ
ent but IN New York witness must have prevlo1s
kaow ledge OF the handwriting Of the defendant cannot
conclude that any handwriting is that OF the defendant
simply BY the comparson OF two or more papcrs offered
Mr.. Colin, in thii case, was, therefore, ruled
Er. VIM e. Oakley, teller Of the Gizsns' Bank, re-
called.
Busted objected the examination OF this wit
Objection ovefrulad.
q Have you such knowledge OF the defend
ants handwriting will enable You 10 jud.s OF us A.
Ny knowledge relates principally the sisaSsure
checks as oGmpared viii our ssna!are boox compared
ing think that have sncn q knowledge. @ Can yoa
say, from your knowledEs Of defendants writing that
the signature Adams ES press Compauys recep. book
WIS written By The porsony (Obected ard obicc
ton sustaned) Tbs witness idennaed TIC ssnstures 10
Two checks for 81 $50 and $780, respectively, presented
by Williams IN person; when an account rs oponet at
bank, the President or casaerseldon tho tei,r-pro
cures tie gnatare Of tbs customer 70 the signature BOOK
wness did deendant write his III the boox,
and never had any with him on the sAojec'
Old MOI SEQ him wrse tho Two secks rcfsrres Vi 5sFer
saw him write without the oompaEson OF INC Sie.ks
with the ers book, would 10; De able 70 say MY
thing or eofen0anis handwriting (ter iurtacr argu
neut the question ycrd tho correspondence OF
.o--,.- :. a.. shctIs al tc ~ OAK u r., -