The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-06-30

and that they received an answer which pur-
ported TO be signed by the defendant. The an
swer was delivered to WFBER but ANDERSON
swears that he saw and read II. WEBER is dead.
1t appears that he was murdered; the prosecu-
ton suggest that he had the original SHrRMAN
letter when he was killed His wife has never
found IL and II you believe that he had 1t on
his person when he was killed I, is not unree-
sonablc to suppose that his murdcrcrs may have
purloined It. Still. the existence of that origi-
nal at one time is the fact of which you are TO
be satisfied and on this point II the defendant
has by his proofs satisfied you that he did not
write or sign any such letter as that of which
ANDERSON Processes to have produced a copy.
you must believe that ANDERSON is perjurcd. or
else that the letter which WEBER and he did re-
oeivo was forgery.
The direct evidence on the part Of the de-
PENDANT is the testimony OF the defendant
himself and the testimony Of the woman
JESKs. The defendant does not expressly and
positively deny that no wrote or signed letter
Of which ANDERSON processes to have produced
a copy He does not believe that he wrote or
signed such u letter. but he thinks that what
ANDERSON calls copy contains some things
which he might have said. and should be will
ing to say again. Still. he intcrposes no posi-
tive denial. and did not. whom on the stand.
suggest forgery. You will have tho copies OF
both letters before you. and will Judge. from
the Internal evidence taken in connection with
all tho fncts. whether II is probable that the de-
PENDANT wrote or signed the lettor of which AN
DERsoS processes to produce copy.
hut now must direct your attention TO the
theory taken MP by the defence since the de-
PENDANT was on the stand. namely. that the let
ter was forged witness. Mrs jerks. has
come forward who avows that she took part in
a. a IL. IL.
MAN did not write or sign the letter which WEBER
received. You will have observed the manner
II this witness you can Judge from whit Is re-
vealed OF her mode OF life Ms political in.
t9Udnte. from what she tostines or refuses to
disclose. whether she hns told the truth or
whether she II n brazen liar. who has invented
this story for tho purpose Of screening the de-
fendant Her story is this; She was thc person
who took the NFBER-ANpERsoN letter 10 the ST.
| Charles Hotel. 10 DO delivered TO Mr.. SHERMAN.
But she says she did not deliver IL to him: that
she went into a certnin paror I'm that hotel
where she found number Of the visiting
statesmen and other persons. but Mr. SHER-
/ MAN was not present; that she read tho WEBER
/ ANDERSON letter. having unconsclously bitten
on n corner ot the envelope. and TINT she then
and there dictated AN answer. which some
/ other person present wrote down: that Mr..
| SHEnMAN's name was then put to the answer.
! but not by himself and that she then gave this
/ answer to WEBER and made him believe That
] the defendant wrote and signed IL. She refused
/ To tell who wrote down what she dictated. SO
/ far her testimony corroboratcs ANDERSON for
/ it shows that in answer TO the letter which he
/ believed SHEhMAN had received from WIENER
and himself he did see In WrpEp's hands n let
ter purportng TO be signed by JoHN SHERMAN.
You will Judge from the internal evidence
.,.l.. "a
things which Mr.. SHERMAN thinks he might
have said or at any rate would be willing To say.
wns likely 10 have been dictated by this woman.
/ You will Judge. whoever was the person who
| held the pen. whether il il probable that any
| other person than This woman was likely totakc
the enormous risk Of forging Nj. SHERMAN >
name TO a political letter dictated bl this woman.
when Nr. SHLRMAN was al That moment in the
! same hotel, or at any rate in tie same city II
| you entertain doubts Of this woman's story.
| you will naturally inquire for the motive which
may have actunted her In lis concoction. She
appears before YOU a. n very shameless poliii-
cal adventures. Sho may have had tho -hrewd-
hess TO suppose that II. without previous con-
cert with the defendant. She could succeed in
generating him. she would establish a very
strong claim upon him or the Administration
of which he T. q leading member. or sh" may
have hal the motive which often actuatos de-
PRAYED persons. Of doing something sirikingly
successful. in accounting for a mystery. Il
would SEEM however, that hes invention. If II
be one. and Of this YOU are 10 judge. lacks every
element Of probability. II YOU believe that she
has told the truth you must acquit tie defend
ant. II you entertain doubts about her story
you must lock for further evidence TO Sc,
whether Il j. confirmed or not. There Is
one remark, however. which deem II proper
10 make upcn hor testimony before pass t,
the remaining evidence. II she hadtaken upon
herself the whole burden ~ the alleged for
gerry it might have been din alt 70 reject hol
positive assertion. But she tells you that IN TN
preparation q that letter sho had an accom-
plice. the person who wrote II under her dicta
ton. She did not apparently prepare herscl
10 encounter the question Of who that per-ui
was; but ms soon as this question wus asked
she promptly refused 20 answer ii.
"Somo az The ditch shy are hut can
lie tulnuIlnl ia thv mine,
s'lne. though they sltul ulc FAY JOB, van.
D. leap into the nft
Whether this woman in the story which sh'
has told has invented circumstance which o
itself discrodils her, and which she has no
dared TO subject tothe simplesttest Of truth. yOl
will have to Judge. II You come TO this conclu
sion. hers viii not be- the first instance Of Toll!
in the annals Of perjury.
1t appears, from her own admissions that Thu
witness made extraordinary efforts and oiicro,
remuneration to obtain possession Of the letlc