New-York tribune., 1880-10-30
EVIDENCE AGAINST PHILIP.
ERAsuREs ON THE ENVELOPE DETECTED.

WHAT EXPERTS IN HANDWRITING sAl-PIIilP )
POPULARITY IN SPELLING WORDS ENDING IN
lies THE DEFENCE OBJECT TO AN ADJOURN
MFNT-JUDGE DAvIs's DECIsION-ENIDENCEO OF
Posr OFFICE OFFICIALS IN REGARD 10 THE
MoREY LETTER.
The principal point in the Philip investga-
fon yesterday was the evidence in regard TO
the envelope of tie Morey letter. 1t was
shown that its address had been written over
erased writing, and in one place the micro
scope showed what had been erased. The post
Office stamps, which are partially erased
showed that the letter must have been de-
livered from one of the uptown stations OF
this city and that the date of its receipt at
such station must have been January IL OF
o. Testimony was given to show that TIE
handwriting was that of Philip. One of the
witnesses familiar with Philips habits of wit
Ing stated that one of his pecuiarites was III
Using "yu instead of "Ie" in the plural of
nouns ending in "ies' The word com
>anys appears in the Morey letter.
TESTIMONY or EXPERTS AND OFFICIALS
The crowd which surrounded the doors of the
Court of Oyer and Iermner to which the Philip libel
ease has been transferred, far greater yesterday
than the crowd winch struggled for admittance on
the previous day Long before 10 clock thcroom
packed, and yet the officers who guarded the door
made a pretencc Of passing none except members OF
the bar reporters and those directly interested IN
the case. The number OF newspaper
men present large. and thefe
were also many prominent Democrats present
among them was Abram 5. Hewitt, who sat at the
back of the jury-box. Whenever he stood up tho
crowd gazed at him with as much curious inquiry
as they do at the person charged with the libel.
The same counsel were present as on the preceding
aay-Messrs. Bell, Bliss. aad StOughtOn for the
Prosecution. and MesSrs Brooke. Pryor, Veeder and
Howe. for the defendant. Nh Hart was present
Ind there was as much speculation as to whether
be would produce the envelope of the Morey letter
as there had been i'll regard TO the letter itself
Thursday.
As soon as Judge Davis took his seat. Mr.. Hart
was called to the stand. Mr.. Howe then produced
the envelope referred to- and the witness left the
stand without any question having been put to him.
TESTIMONY As TO HANDWRITING.
A. F. SOuthworth, of Boston, an expert in hand
writing. then called and examined by Mr.. Bel.
He stated that he had been constantly employed as
an expert for twenty years. He had examined the
exhibits attached to the afdavits and mark "A' to
"K"; also the Morey letter, and letters from Gen
eral Garfield. The handwriting of these letters and
of the MOrey letterwas not the same but the hand
writing of the MOrey letter cOrreSpOnded and was
in his opinion the same the exhibits. He pro-
ceeded 10 point out in detail the great similarly be-
tween these two showing the habit of writing TO be
the same in the letter and the exhibits.
On crosse Examination the witness said that be
had been a witness III the Whitaker case, and also
in the Hesdra will case He admitted testityiug IN
the latter that IN his opinion the signature of
one of the subscribing witnesses to the Wi of Mrs.
Hesdra also in the handwriting of the person
who wrote the WILL but lie dld not know whether
his was proved 10 be not in accordance with the
facts. Other questions aimed at his crcdibilty
were put and followed by questions as to his po-
htical belief. He was asked by Mr.. Brooke:
Q-Are you acquainted with General Garfield A
Not in the least.
O-You are interested IN his election are you not?
As every individual il. LIug1ter.l
William Z. Hogan, of Troy. another expert in hand
writing next called and gave evidence cOrrOOO-
Talve of that of the former wtLesS, but in his de-
tailed statements of the reasons that led him TO !
these conclusions he cited many additional in |
stances He was subjected to long crosS-examina
ton by Mr.. Brooke principally directed TO his pT
vate business, after which he was asked II he eX-
pected to receive compensation for his testimony,
and if he Interested IN the election of Garfield.
He did expect 10 be PAID he sald, and bad no more
interest Garields election beyond that he would
vote for him. The last remark elected laughter !
and slight symptoms of applause, which were III |
Btantly suppressed.
The envelope of the Morey letter was handed to |
the witness by MIR. SCoughton. and he examined il |
He testified that he found that several !
mad been made on 1t. There We're three
the other; IN none of these could the date he
made ont. The indications were that the dates
which should be found in these stamps had been
removed by friction or rubbing.
, In reply to Judge DAVIS the witness SAID that he
had examined the address " ii. l.. Morey," and
found II was written eraSure.
Mr. Brooks objected TO the questions put by the
Judge
was recalled. gave ii rs bis opinion that the address
ell. l.. Morey" was not written by the same hand
that wrote the Rockwell and Jewell letters.
Allen y. Leet, who Is IN business at No AZ Muir
rayst., said that he bad known Mr.. Plnlp for
years. He was familiar with the defendants band
writing as they worked together at one time and
defendants copy passed through his hands. lie
had examined the exhibits fIem "a TO X and he
should say they were IN the handwriting of Philip.
lie also believed the photO-llthOgraphed letter
called the MOTey letter, which appeared in Ii7tfh |
was i'll Philips handwriting. He had said so before
he knew that Philip was charged with the forgery
writing. Mr. Leet replied that Phiip bad peculiar
habit of writing words ending IN the plural " les
as charities" families" or companies, With vs.
instead of "ies' II was a habit which the witness
had noticed on many occasions. He noticed it III
the Morey letter III the word "companys."
AN ADJOURNMENT ASKED.
Mr.. Bell at this point asked for adjournment on
the ground that the envelope Of the MOrey letter
had only been received in the morning and the
prosecution wished to produce witnesses from Lynn
and Washington in regard to it,
Mr.. Brooke-We object any adjournment. and sug
gest Honor tnat yOu have DO to adjourn
this examination. lne statute requires tndt TINS
nation shall be proceeded with without delay except by
consent Of both sides and we do not consent.
Judge Davis-NIll Ou show me that stdtutef
Mr. Brooke cannot give the language but that is
the construction of the statute
Judge DiYls-SO far have proceeded without DELAY. |
MI BrOOkc-We are not OhjectIug TO what already
gone but are ooecng 10 the motion OF the gentle
man for adjournment
Judge Dayis-It IL matter OF discretion for the pre-
sidlng magistrate To give time TO any party not
General PryOr-lherc Is no necessity imagiu9b BILE for
IN journment of this proceeding. The defendant may
be permitted 10 on with hl. testimony substanta-
ion OF the genuineness Of this letter, and the gentlemen
)n the other side can 20 on with their evidence after
Eari. These gentlemen have anticipated defence
and have undertaken 70 mpeach this letter, and at
critical stage of the election they propose interrupt
the proceedings with adjournment. l simply ask
hat We be permitted 10 take up our spudtng to
P1ye them Iull liberty 10 produce any corTObOratve
testimony
Mr. St0nghton-We propose to show that the envelope
Was unquestlt naby forged We fnd that u has been