The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1873-12-19

nor when they were given up don't know of
Matteson surrendering OF note. or OF Morris
paying him. except in the way have stated
think it occurred more than once
REDIRECT.
Couldn't tell whether the old note was paid
by new one made no inf erence on the sub
ject. Was q student in Kalamazoo, also prac-
ticed law about years, with c. S. May part OF
the time; the firm was NJ ay & Church.
A note naked exhibit offered in evidence;
also exhibit 4, note; mum Der 3. a note; No.
II, note; and 10, note. Mr. Church on be-
ing shown Van Buren, Co. Republican said
that was the notice rerefer red to. The notice
was read by counsel, it being promise to pay
for their trouble, any witness to any note be-
tween Morris and Matteson and signed M. d.
Matteson. The paper dated August 90.
Tuesday, Dec. &c.
Exhibit 10, an instrument purportins to
have been signed by Morris, was offered in ey-
idence on Yesterday. Objected 10 and decision
reserved till to-day-objection overruled.
HENRY J. HoLLIsTER SWORN
Reside in Grand Rapids l have been 20
years in the banking business; have very
often had occasion to examine hand writing,
complaint, deposition and exhibit IL shown
witness, also Nos. 3 and and signature 10 the
, mortgage in question. Assuming that the
first signatures were made by the same hand,
I should think the signature to the mortgage
is also by the same hand think the signature
TO the mortgage and the filling out are not by
the same hand. There is different style per-
ceptIble, one i running hand, made by
rapid writer, the other is cramped. There IS
marked difference in the make Of the letters q
similarity ia the signatures, in the formation o.
the letters n, o, and the dotting OF the /. -
2 II, 6, Is, . and shown witness. Think
they are al by the same hand. lam eopnec,et
with the First National Bank ofGrand Rapids.
CROSS EXAMINATION.
Have seen these papers before. Ia; week
Wednesday, can't state whether l saS them
before thar. Have recollection Of some sigma
lures presented 70 ne over my counter IN Grand
Rapids some time last summer but can't tell
by whom, nor if these are the signatures
am cashier, the duties OF cashier differ in bank.
My duties are a general superintendent OF
the bank, she correspondence, am not tied down
70 any department; in measure l take IN the
general make Of the letters, l cannot always
give good reason for the opinion l torn.-
Think the lotting Of the in the signature and
in the body 81 the mortgage are similar, but
see difference in the way the pen struck the
paper, but they are made by a dash anc are
the same an Gle. Parts of the A in the sigma
ture and body OF the mortgage are alike, othe
parts are different LG and ii shown witness
Think the signature 10 II and complaint re-
semble each other more than the signature 10
mortgage and the body Of the same. Don't
claim that can Away: tell whether two sigma
lures are by the same hand. Have been ca-
led ones or twice year an expert in the
last 10 years. Complaint and mortgage shown
to Jury.
". ". BATES swoEs
Exhibit Il offered in evidence objected TO
on the ground that it had not been shown 70
complaining witness, and an opportunity given
for cross examination
Reside in Grand Rapids, am connected with
the Grand Rapids savings Bank, am cashier,
have been engaged since go. Have had occa-
sion to examine handwritngs. Complaint,
deposition, exhibits II, aud 1, and signature
10 mortgage shown Witness Assuming the
first ) 70 be the genuine signature Of Amos
Morris, l SHOULD say the last was also his sig
nature. Signature to the mortgage and the
writing ia the body OF the same, l think, are
not the same. There is no similarity between
/ the two, the VI Is a different letter. also the o
the a might have been made by the same hand.
/ One is an open hand-written with a full arm
motion. l, II, 6, l3, =, 9 and shown wit
ness. Think they are the same as the first 5
/ shown. The exhibits named shown 20 the
Jury.l
CRoss-ExAMINED.
Have seen these papers before, part Of them
/ last fall at our place. Matte.on brought them
Was not informed that was wanted ~ testify
till [ was called on. Ny duties are a genera
superintendenoy of the internal workings 81
the bank. Was never before called upon e
compare writing in this way. Can't tel! IN all
cases whether signatures are genuine. Dom-
pared the signature &c the mortgage and the
Amos Morri, IN the body Of the same, noticed
a difference in the dottng of the i, though they
all look as il they might have been made ~
the same hand, tney have almost the same an
gle Don't see very much similarity between
the As. Shown several signatures. Don't
know tha' they were made oy the same mana
as the signature 10 the mortgage The more
letters We have the easier il Is 20 getect the Ia.
sky or senuneness.
E. Il. HUNT SWORN.
Reside in Grand Rapids, am connected with
the City National Bank, hayo been ID years,
am paying teller. Ere ,uently have occasion O.
compare signatures. same exhibits shown as
were shown TO last witness.l Think they are
the same a. signature to the mortgage. 7 be
signature to the mortgage and the writing il
the body of the same are different hand writ
ings. one is free running hand, the other a
craDped, contracted hand. Exhibits and 1
are the same; ,, 9, 2, =, |, il and - are the
same a the first SHOWN.
CROSS EXAMINATION.
In detect ng forgery L generally 90 by first
impression, gained by the first glance. Don't
think a skilltu counterieiter would get any par
ticularites of bis own hand in the counterfeit
d An unskiled one would be apt TO. Ii person
writing running hand should forge a cramped
hand he would be apt 70 getit more cIamped.
The signature u complaint j. more even taau
exhibit 1, the complaint is more even than NJ
;, and OF the mortgage and the last three, Tie
mortgage Is tne smOothest signature. Found
no similarity between tne dotting vi tue IN
the signature to the mortgage and that IN the
body. There is not much variation il the ar
gle Of and IL, the deposition and complaint
No. 4 is the smoothest, Is not much better
than the others, 3-the Quinn ote-is a better
signature than the mortgage.
Exhibit Ii offered in evidence, counsel tor
the people objected to it, but not to shown. 3,
to tAe witnesses.
HENRY SLEEPER SWORN.
Live in Kalamazoo. Have been CLERK ct
the county since January, last. Was farme-
before that, and Secretary OF the Senate before
, that, have been deputy postmaster. Have had
occasion to compare handwritings. signature
; to complaint, deposition, Bill in Chancery an6
T EXHIBITS and 4, and signature to mortgage
, shown TO witness.l Assuming the first five to
=.