The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1864-03-04
MARCH 4, 1864. :

money he had. This was In the morning. He
did not want to indorse from the fact be was IN
as much as he wanted at that time.
Testimony all In.
ABSTRACT or ARGUMENTS.
The closing argument for the defence was
made by Joseph Howard, Esl.. of Portland,
formerly Judge of the Supreme Court. 1t
occupied In its delivery about four hours, some
three hours being occupied upon the same day
the evidence was closed, and about one hour
the next morning. Asa legal effort u was ored-
table even to him who had occupied so high o
place in the judiciary OF the State: AL that
could be said for the def. was said, and well
said, and we noticed number Of ingenious ef.
forts to excite the prejudices Of the jurors. We
can only give a bare synopsis Of the arguments
in the case. After dealing somewhat severely
with the principal witness for the Government,
and assuming that the motives OF the prosecu.
tor we're personal. the counsel o..
list. Alluded to the friendly relations former.
ly existing between the def. and Mason. Tho
very large amount Of paper they had endorsed
for each other, and the manner In which they
had dono business, evidencing an entire oond-
dence In each other. % 20
u.
noto In question was so great that Mason was
unable to detoct the pretended forgery by an
examination of the signature alone; contending
that without some other aid he could not select
this from the many others introduced. That
its resemblance was 30 great to those which
we're admitted as to well nigh establish the In
necence Of the def, and certainly to raise q
doubt OF his guilt.
Sd. The opinion Of . great number OF wit
II ;tL q tk.k nd rtf fino nf al
and Mason had been introduced, and oil were
of opinion the signature was genuine. The
opinion of those men he regarded as entitled to
great weight in the case.
4th That although Mason had testified that
he always waived demand aud notice on notes
In York County Bank which were genuine, yet
he contended that they proved two instances in
which II was not done, and In that particular
his testimony was contradicted.
5th That he (Mason) did not know the amt.
he had indorsed; that the amount proved to be
much larger than he supposed, and therefore
came the suspicion Of wrong. He adyorted to
Mason's various statements OF the amount for
which he was liable rs evidence OF this fact, and
adyertcd to some discrepancies which ne con- con
tended appeared in the testimony given BY Ma.
son and the officers Of the several banks; that
these contradictions should lead the jurors to
reject his testimony altogether unless supported
BY other evidence. 'H'
9th. lie advertcd to the testimony OF Chick
and Thompson rs evidence to show indorse-
nlents being made In the month OF August,
while Mason testifes none had been made since
July 2l, 1888. a. ..r
The counsel also argued that the letter shew
q continuance of friendly relations down to the
time OF the failure, and that their friendly In
tercourse in the adjustment OF business matters
mt Mason's Office atterward was full evidence OF
II. Many other points were made and arguel
with great energy and ingenuity; We do not
undertake TO state them all or the order In which
they occurred, but have stated what seemed to
us some Of the prominent ones. lie closed by
urging u verdict of acquittal Mt once, without
hesitation or delay, asserting that the evidence
not only warranted but demanded 1t, and he
had no doubt It would cheerfully be rendered
by them. ,...'.-. M F,
The cause on the part of government was ar
gucl by H. P. Taplcy, the County Attorney.
lie commenced bis argument to the jury by
suggesting to them that while the counsel for
the defence were, in the presentation Of this
cause, restricted only by the rules OF honor'I-
BILE practice in courts OF law, and were at hber-
ty To secure the acquittal OF even guilty man
by urging technical inaccuracies or assumed
insuiiiciency of proof on the part OF govern.
ment, and were at liberty to throw into the
case all their powers Of logic and persuasion,
and appeals to both the judgment and sympa.
thy. the duties Of the prosecuting ofticer. the
jury and the Court were quite different. They
could have no interest to convict On innocent
man, and they must GO In the direction the ey-
idence led them, without inquiry as to the con-
sequences. That they were not TO know or con.
slider what the punishment might or might not
be, but upon their oaths they were well and
truly to try the issue between tho State and
tho defendant according to the evidence. lie
cautioned the jury against being led away from
the true issue in the case, and stumbling about
upon matters merely incidental. He asserted
that during the long trial which had been gone
through with. and the discussion which had
ariscr, upon abstruse questions Of law and evi.
dence. and the pertinency OF evidences intro:
duced and sought to be introduced, the mind
would impcrceptibly be carried away from the
great main question, the only issue In the case.
and that II would require some effort OF the
mind to shake of these deluding attractions
thrown in BY ingenious counsel to aid in the
defence of their client. The counsel added
Forgetting for the moment all that has been
said aud done, closing your eyes to parties
either assumed or real, what Is the real ques-
ton TO be determined by you? Is u anything
son. upon he back Of this note! Let Us con.
slider we'll, before wa enter upon this examina-
ton, evidence whether or not this be 90. II II
Is, all the evidence In tho case must be exam
iued with reference 70 this inquiry" Amer
discussing this question for n short time, the
counsel proceeded to the examination OF the
case. .... ..-. - ....,
First, by alludng briefly 10 the fact that the
case Of the government was made out by the
proof that the name was forged, and that the
note thus forged was In the possession OF the
defendant, and by him uttered as genuine the
day sfter the date. The counsel then proceeded
In defence, and in q careful. dspassioncd man
ner. took the fabric Of the defence IN pieces,
dissectng every piece scristim. s8i is 5.eII
lst. Their former friendly relations. II wa
admitted, did exist as claimed by the defendant,
and large amount Of endorsements genuine had
been made. This fact, II was contendeI, was
In no wise inconsistent with the charge now
made against the defendant. Forgerics. when
discovered, were almost always found to exist
under such circumstances. Seldom were they
found TO be committed by q stranger 70 the par
ty whose name he had thus improperly used
The great frequency of his use Of the genuine
signature had not only accustomed the sigma
turc TO his own observation, 20 that he could
the more nearly counterfeit II, butit had sccus.
toned the business circles TO SEQ II In his hands.
and thus avoid any suspicion. lg,g ss1
The great amount OF paper In bank, becom-
ing due, which Was genuine, must be met by
some means, aud when Mason discontinued his
endorsements some Ireans must DO adopted "
meet those liabilities no name could more
rea lly he usel than that which lie hal Tor years
b.en using. aud no Iodbt whyi he thus used II
he intended tJ Bay at maturity and the fact
thai their relations were OF so friendly char
scter that their businexs transactions with ench |
other were lousely conducted. keeping no mems.
.,,d. ~ ,ho xarious Endorsements, would be /