The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1864-03-04

Mason writs. In bat very few inltsnces, and
they now upon 0 view Of this signature just
shown them, from mere recollection OF tho
genuine sigustures express their opinion. Tho
uncertainty Of this kind Of evidence based upon
the fitting remembrance Of the general eharao-
ter Of the genuine Signatures was examined
critically. .r. 49,, .--s.-l u !.
the waiver Of demand and notice was examined
and oYplained, The note introduced without
the waiver upon Il being note given BY Moore
10 Mason in payment, and not ono Of their 40.
commodation notes. This, II Was commended,
should In no wise detract from The credit TO 10
attached to the testimony OF Mason.
5th. His various statements concerning the
amount Of his inducements In no degree weak.
ened his testimony upon tho main inquiry, OF
whether or not the Endorsement In question Was
forged. He did not know the exact amount OF
genuine Endorsements, and could only tell BY
an examination; but he did know that be had
not indorsed to the amount Of $50 900 and so
informed Moore the night Of their; converse
ton. All the testimony both from the Govern.
ment and defence, nlluding In any way to the
matter, shew the great fact that from the very
onset Mason at all times and In oil places, where
the subject was alluded to by him denied his In
dorsement OF so largo IN amount. II thus ap.
peared that II was no after thought. II was
fully, freely and boldly declared to Moore rs
soon ss Moore indicated the amount OF paper
out, purporting to be indorsed by him, estab.
fishing the fact that he at once knew bis name
ha been improperly-used. ....r.
9th. The testimony Of Chick nnd Thompson
was critically examined, not only with reference
to It's own inconsistencies, but with reference to
other matters bearing upon the time they AL
legged they were In the store, and shown to DO
entirely unreliable, and the fact that they did
not purport 10 reach the case OF the note In
question which the def. alleged was indorsed
in his Office. ... r....t.....
7th. The testimony Of the several bank d.
rcctors was examined and shuwn to be In har-
mony with the testimony Of Mason, on all ma
terial points.
Every position assumed by the defence Was
taken up and examined carefully, infinitely and
at length, and II was contended that there was
nothing In the several points taken either sing
ly or collectively, that would require any de-
traction from the main statement OF the the
witness, Mason, that he did not indorse the note
mentioned In the Indictment II these were
discrepancies they were upon immaterial mat.
ters. and unless these matters exhibited sufi.
cient to weaken the testimony Of Mason, or
cause the jury to doubt his integrity, they were
of no consequence at all In the case. The ques.
ton was not, who were correct In these imma-
tegal matters, but was Mason to bc believed In
HE positive denial Of this Endorsement. with
reference to this having considered the objeo-
tion raised, the counsel said he proposed to call
the attention of.thc jury to some corrooornting
evidence IN the case. - To
Ist. There was an entire absence OF any rea
sonablc theory about the origin OF the note 10
question. The theory advanced by the deft.
with reference to the Pease md Gilpatric note
was critically examined and exploded. There
was no pretence It was for renewal OF any
other. III. .-.....tl. .zsf f.6..t.,,I6ai
q. That during the examination In this caseby
the def |, In person, he had made no inquiries OF
Mason concernipg the oopsjderatiou, or the
time, place or circumstances OF It's execution
3d.. That while II had been assumed by the
defence that the note was indorsed ti Moorcs
Office, no person, not even John Thompson, or
Barker, the student in the Office, testified they
ever saw Mason indorse q note In the office. :,
Ath That their relations had become changed
more than q year before the failure. and were
growing less and less cordial nll the time. This
was admitted by the counsel for defendant In
opening the case for tho defence. That Mason
had objected to indorsing for Moore In March
last was not denied; tho only point OF differ.
ence being the cause OF II. This, the counsel
contended, was iminatcripl, II 80 be there was
n suspension OF the Endorsements. This I'm
posed the necessity OF adopting some other
means to met the then constantly accruing de-
mands. Here the counsel described in graphic
manner how, by the steady, unylelding demand
fatal step was taken. referring to the several
notes becoming due from time; the reluctance
first of Mason to indorse and then refusal, Z,
placed the defendant In most desperate posi-
ton. He had been reputed wealthy, had erect.
ed stately residence Ia this little interior vii.
lsge, and was living In fine style; failure and
ruin stared him In the face. and in an unlucky
moment he yielded to the temporary relief OF
an uuauthorised use Of Msson's name, hoping
that como new expedient might be devised TO
relieve him from his awful embarrassuents.
But no new expedients came, and no relief was
found; still these demands vero constantly sc-
again use the name, and continue to hope that
he might be able to extricate himself from his
financial difficulties. si y ~. ID
This part of the case was conside, ed at some
length, ns showing tho cause or motive for the
commission of the offence. t' .u.g.ls.
9th. That In April he instructed the stage
drivers to no longer leave money with Mason
rs they had done before. but to rather keep Il
In their pockets over night, II they could not
find him. This the counsel contsnded was In.
duced from some pressing cause or other. IL
was suggested that some money had on one oc-
cssion been lost which was brought BY stage
came into Moore's office, 50 that would oper-
ate rather as amotive for continuing the custom
which had long before prevailed, of leaving II
with Mason. What, then, could be the cause
the counsel inquired. and then remarked that
he need not make the suggestion, but lease II
10 the Jury to say whether or not Il was fact
with the charge made against the lie.
fsndaut. The counsel for the Government also
alluded to the fact that the defendant did not,
when no returned on Friday, (the note OF $500
having been discounted on Tuesday,) odcr to
Mason the 5000 which he thus received Nor
did he account for or mention anything about
the two $1,000 notes which the defence say he
Endorsed at the same time, and tho County At.
tornsy concluded that II they had been genu'
Inc notes and II was IN honorable transaction.
he would have paid over the $500 received and
have exhibited and cinccllei the two $1,000
notes. Nothing would hayo been more natural,
n thew had been genuine, than for Mason to
hs INQUIRED for this S2S00 Of paper issued
pnly the Monday before. Yet nothing Was
aid about either OF said notes.
The testimony OF the expert Conner was nj.
luded TO as OF no inconsiderablc importance:
Long experience and extensive praetice hsi
lifted him for giving q reliable opin
on. n gentlemen who had been called by thu
defence could give m opinion OF any value from
!. mere recollection of tho signature OF the Wit
,eys. Mason, how much more valuable must
nc opinion or one he VINO has before him the
genuine signature, with magnifyiny glasses TO
Examine Il. II those gentlemen WHOM they
,ad called coull from single momeut's glance
With Tho naked eye form an opinion Of any
ralue, how much more valuable must bis be Of:
or examining Il carefully. with the Aids be bed
4 Itcomusud, hours. He reminded them they
would have the papers with them and could
make an examination themselves and for them
ELVES, determine whether or not there we're III.