The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-02-13

plaintff that the defendant would never have been
enabled to lay hands ON q genuine signature OF
Reuben Ballou. Counsel, submitting the King
Henry Book and original signatures of Reuben
Balou to the jury said it would be observed that in
the King Henry book the letters in the entry were
formed In the new style, while in the genuine sig
natures Of Ballou they were clearly cut and
defined in the old style. The signature In the
King Henry book had been originally spelt Ruben,
but 1t was afterwards tempered with and altered
into Reuben. In the word providence" In the
original writing OF Reuben Ballou, he formed the
letter by two movements OF the hand while in
the entry in the King Henry book the capital was
made, as the jury would observe, without taking
the pen from the paper, thus stamping the entry
as base forgery In the King Henry book the
word Providence was spelt 'Providance; =" but,
though Reuben Ballou was an awful speller, he
invariably spelt the name of the town he lived in
correctly. 1t would be observed that the covers
mad been torn or the book, and that the fly leaf
had been preserved, and though the book had been
handed round nom counsel to commissioner 1t yet
appeared in tolerably good state OF preservation,
and that would not have been the case had it
recent brightness Of the ink in the entry in ques-
ton could not be obscured Everything connected
base forgery and imposture. It was Kept secret,
as also was the entry in Anne Eliza Vandervoort's
u M.s Uhy waE Kspt
dervoOrt she showed him her Bible, but she did not
show MIN the entry in the King Henry book The
in October, 1866, she would have shown it to
Bowen was going to Edmonds & Fields to com
mence this suit ana then, for the first time, did G.
BOOK. Bowen was to give his name s to 't the
suit; Anne Eliza Vandervoort was to
%s sn to the nave Ed%SaSs Fields s
suit succeeded, and the other half was to be
divided between Bowen and Anne Eliza Wander
WORT. The bunglng c0unterfeiter who made that
entry in the K1ng Henry book never probably saw
an original signature Of Reuben Ballou. 10 the
perjury, subornatton Of perjury and fabrication Of
documents Who was the author Of itS He (Mr.
all original participation in this act by which It
was sought to impose this fabrication on Court Of
Justice; Bowen was poor weak instrument who
be In the handwriting Of Reuben Balloa. Who was
the man or woman who concocted this book sHe
ton in this fraud The fraud was in existence be-
fore the case fell into the hands of Its present
slightest insinuation against Edmonds Il Fields
that they would lend themselves to q fabrication
part Of the original papers. He did not cast the
slightest reflection on Edmonds Fields, for it
would DC seen that they mad total unwilling1ess
Court or jury could look with the slightest
gard on papers OF this character. II the book was
fabricated by any One there was overwhelming
evidence to show that it was fabricated by Anne
Eliza vandervoort or by some person in collision
side of participation in the fraud; but there his ad
mission must STOP The forged character Of this
counsel on the other side had not hest .
tat tated inv, again to place this book before
.' ON to psSe o.
Joseph Perry's evidence-his coming to New York,
his going to Carmansville and seeing Madame Ju-
mel, talking to her about George w. Bowen, say
ing that Bowen in struggling circumstances in
Providence and hoping that out of the abundance
hard to contradict the statements of such persons
when they were testifying to the declarations OF
caeG as vaess or TIM wd1
driven from perjury to perjury and falsehood to
1asehood Though he had sworn that he had no
had brothers living and his mother also. He swore
that prior to his visit to Madame Jumel he came to
New York in 1916 by the Fall River line Of steamers
while it was q matter Of history that that line OF
steamers was not in existence until 1910. Counsel
called attention to other matters upon which he
claimed Perry had committed deliberate perjury, |
and said 1t was remarkable fact that the evidence
of this periured witness was read at the last trial
was shown to be perjured, to the horror and CON
sternation Of this learned Judge, there was not q
OF the trial. Counsel for plaintiff said that they
would not ask the jury to attach any credit to |
them by the defendant, and they asked leave to |
withdraw it. He had not yet done with the afro |
cious infamy OF this evidence. Bowen testified |
that he knew Perry; that he played with him as |
boy and knew him in Providence, though 1t was |
sworn ana now admitted that Perry was not born |
in Providence At all and was never there hey.
The excuse for Bowen was now made that he was |
mistaken, and that he spoke from Information. |
swore up to theimark, and he swore falsely in his
own cause. Bowen swore on the last trial that he |
had net seen en- Perry for twenty years before hs
yet upon the stand on the present trial Bowen |
says ne never saw Perry until the morning Of the |
this man, Bowen, was, did he, upon the stand. on |
the last trial certify to Perry that he meant the
Bowen did not nnd Perry, but Mr.. Gideon NM ).
Tucker found him. Tucker pretends to say that |
N % On S some
say that the defendant did IL, but he insnuated |
tnat he did. Would the defendant run the risk OF
with false story which could be at once
exposedf Who made the exposure full ana
Provdencef The defendant did, and yet i il was
said that the defendant imposed Perry upon the |
nrst twenty years OF his life, and alter that the
plaintin put credence in him, after it had been |
line Of steamers in 1915, though it was well knowp
there no Fall River steamers until 1870. |
Tucker states that the first knowledge he had Of |
Perry was from william Jones, the hafbrotner |
of Mr.. Chase's former wife, But 1t was admitted |
that Mr.. Jones was hostile to Mr.. Chase; and It was
to prove that Gideon J. Tucker mad made a corrupt
offer to Mrs. TraHckell; but the paintfn objected,
and the defendant was not allowed TO give that
arrangement they had made with Mr.. Chase under
the settlement Of the Will but Mr. William Jones
exhibited the greatest hostility TO Mr.. Chase, |
though he never had absolute evidence that he was /
plotting against Mr.. Chase and going into the |
house OF his enemy until the fact was brought out
In evidence by Mr.. Tucker. Mr.. Jones wrote letter
under date OF August H. 1867, stirring up Bowen 70
go on with this litigation and In another letter
rebukes Bowen for abandoning bis suit. Tucker |
says he Kept the matter secret in consequence Of
promise to Jones that 1t should be kept secret. |
But he adds that he had broken through the secret
because his character was attacked. 1t was only |
attacked because he had found and produced |
with Perry for six weeks after he was admitted to
have committed this PERJURY. On the 18th of Feb |
ruary Mr. tucker was aware that Perry was a |
perjured rascal, and did he on that occasion
go to any magistrate to have the fellow punished
No, but on the 10TH o, April six weeks after |
the trial had closed he went through the pretended
form Of getting up prosecution against him, so |
that this might be used az kind Of exculpation OF
Tucker at some future tme IL ap Ueared that after
the last trial Thicker fnund Perru prnuiia.aa.