The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1882-06-10

Cross-examined-Had been summoned and
came here on Friday; had not conversed on
this subject before he came here; Mr.. Wamp
Ter had said he would be summoned, but wit
ness regarded it more as a joke than other
wise; went frequently into Capt. Billingslea'
tobacco shop or establishment; had heard the
question discussed there.
The Court here stopped the examination
and directed the counsel to ask witness if he
had expressed an opinion there and how he
had arrived at it.
Witness-thought he had been particular in
those conversations to give no opinion as to
the signature, because he had not seen it; to
the best of his recollection he had said that he
didn't believe from what he knew of Mr.. Hop
pc that he had made any such promise; that
he had written that letter; witness would
not go to see the letter, though frequently
asked if he had seen it: didn't think DIR.
Herring had ever mentioned the subiecttO him,
nor he to DR.. Herring; didn't know ofrelations
of Hoppe to Mrs. Byers; didn't know her
while he was with Hoppe.
An objection was here made to this line of
examination and sustained by the Court
Witness had declined going to see the paper
as he didn't wish to be summoned in the case;
Hoppe was Sheriff from 1912 for 3years; only
examination witness had made of the letters
was on the stand; the reason for his opinion
was the general appearance of the writing; the
same reason why he would know Col. Maulsby
when he met him on the street or anywhere;
because he believed him to be Mr.. Maulsby;
witness was not an expert; the general char
acter of the two letters was different, but he
could not distinguish them as he was not an
expert.
Francis H. 0rendorff had lived IA years in
Westminster now q miles from it; knew
Homo all his Efafima. had Saau hin, vsr;fa.
acted with him as Director in the Union Ma
tional Bank until his death; from his knowl-
edge would not take the disputed letter to be
Hopes handwriting, nor the signature to be
his; the other letter he believed to be Hopes
handwriting and the signature to be his; had
never seen the letters before.
Cross-examined-he hadn' t a particle of in-
terest in the letters; Mrs. Isadore Hoppe was
no relation of his; had not talked with her on
the subject, nor with her eldest son; didn't
think he had with DIR. Herring, nor with Ed
ward Lynch, Mr.. Roberts or young Edwin
Hoppe: had a conversation at his house with
Col Maulsby about it, when he had said he
didn't believe Hoppe had written that letter;
that was short time after the suit was en-
tered; didn't remember expressing strong
feeling against the paper, but had said that in
his judgment Mr.. Hoppe would not do any
thing Of that kind if he had his right senses;
had never seen Hoppe make a as that was
made in the signature 10 the disputed letter;
the down stroke in his recollection was always
heavy; had examined papers two days before
BY himself: also looked over paper with Mr..
Lynch last Sunday; thinks Lynch called his
attention TO the ~.
Captain Albert BilIingslea-Had lived in
Westminster - years; known Hoppe all the
time: had seen him write and had a general
18th hsz
ton had been called specially to Hopes
writing two years ago BY the fact that he had
n leather bsnaage Of some kind on his two
fingers. and he had looked at the writing az.
forwards; didn't think either the body or sig
nature of the disputed letter was Hopes
handwriting; should say that the undisputed
letter was his handwriting: witness had never
seen the paper before.
Cross-examined-His opinion was about as
positive as he could be on the subject of wri-
ting; he wouldn't swear positive that IT was or
was not; but his general idea and opinion was
that one was genuine and the other was not;
had formed that opinion from tine examina-
ton made on the stand; the general character
of the writing enabled him to form an opinion;
it was based ON his general knowledge of
Hoppe handwriting, extending over period
Of NJ years; had had shown 10 him recently
other writings said 10 be Hoppe handwriting;
they had aided him in forming his opinion; is
quite a writer himself and examined the paper
in Hopes Office because his curiosity was
aroused from the circumstance of his writing
with his finger bound up that way: only
glanced over the writing; the undisputed was
written in plain. straightforward manner, as
by one who had taken up the pen and written;
this 1.-THE disputed looked 10 him like a eramp-
ed hand the last paper he ever saw Hoppe
=. L.
were more regularly formed; witness had fire.
quently expressed an opinion about the letters
before, in his place Of business and elsewhere;
be had entertained but one idea about il and
that was that II THE diSputedl letter was in
direct contradiction tosthe life and character
Of Jno. Henry Hoppe. as he had known him
for the last - years; that opinion he had ex-
pressed; he wanted 10 90 to the Register and
crafty his curiosity. but didn't, because he
did not want 20 be summoned on the case;
didn't know why he was summoned; the ques-
tioa had been frequently discussed in his place
aud all there had their opinions. except one
person whom they called their attentive lis
iener; that was Mr.. Manning, though he had
heard him express an opinion too; didn't
know such lady as Mrs. Byers lived before
case came ap.
Lewis c. Myerly, one Of the administrators
OF Mr.. Hoppe estate aud ane 1T the eaveators
in the case was here called.
Col Maalshy made formal objection TO
his being examined but the Court after some
discussion and consultation Of authorities,
ruled that he was competent witness. He
testiked-resided at Manchester; Mrs Hoppe
was his sister; was acquainted with Hopes
handwriting; before he had married made
Hopes house his home having been with
him OF and ON for nearly 30 years had seen
him write frequently and received letters
from him had seen the letters twice before
didn't think the disputed letter was Hopes
writing, nor his signature; thought the other
was Hopes writing and his signature didn't
think the words turn over werc Hopes
handwriting was very uniform don't think
his handwriting varied; found little differ
ence in it in the last year or so of his life, 1t
was little erampy had met Mr.. and Mrs.
Byers on the day the letters were fled in the
Registers office, September 18th, 1881 had
been summoned and was on the way to Court
House after passing the usual compliments
Mrs. Byers asked him whether he had heard
Of that paper he said, what paper she said
the letter that the old man wrote to me, CIV
ing me some money he said no, that he was
Just on his way down now to look at it and in
vited them to 90 along they said no, they
were ON their way home, il was getting late,
they would go ON home and wouldn't go
back Mrs. Byers asked him what he thought
Of it he told her he thought she was slow
bringing il in; she replied by saying she
couldn't End il, that she had laid it away she
thought in the desk, wrapped up in brown
piece Of paper, had hunted again and again
and didn't find il until last week; then she
had found it; John Byers, her husband, also
replied he had never seen that paper before
last week.
Cross examined-This occurred on the
pavement, he thought, nearly opposite Odd
Fellows Hall; she said a piece of brown paper,
he thought, and not a piece of newspaper;
didn't call himself lawyer; was admitted to
the bar in Indiana; practices before magis
trates; hadn't stated since being in Hagers-
town that be wouldn't swear the disputed
letter was not Hopes handwriting.
IDr. j. w. Herring was the next witness
His testimony and that of others viii be given
next week. 1t is thought the trial will con-
sumo all of next week.-Mrs.. OF ADVOCATE
Business Locals.
RARE CHANCE.
n Warnar m, account of ilFhealtb is