The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1882-06-17
THE HOPPE WILL CASE.
coyrTyrrp FROM SECOND PAGE.

/ CONTINUED FROM SECOND FACE.
I letter was as Hoppe wrote it, and something
udded: he got his standard from the genuine
part of IL the name generally, and the upper
part of the flourish was genuine; thought he
/ had seen Hoppe signature IN 1877, at Nc
/ kim's Bank, when they negotiated the West
( ern Maryland r. r. Bonds his first standard
( though, was from the signature to the letter
! thought at the time he first saw it, there was
a difference in the flourish it was always the
object of forgery to make the forged instru-
ment as nearly identical with the genuine as
possible a forger would certainly not make
the letters totally unlike, if he were an expert
at forging; the forger certainly did make the
eapital MS unlike in this case; also the
( final SIS; whenever man undertakes to Jorge
the body of an instrument, he starts out to
make the prominent letters alike, and when
he makes one letter like the genuine, the
next is different, because he has forgotten
and hence the irregularity, and when the m
strument to be forged is written with sigma
ture, he is apt to be more careless with many
I letters than with the signature: no forger ever
makes as his exemplar, any systematic let.
ter; forgery isn't of that stamp: witness had
no feeling. no prejudice in this case man
might be an expert penman, but the clrcum-
stauces around the case might make him a
poor forger this forgery had been made by
a good. fair writer. but certainly not by an
expert peuman; witness could do almost any
thing with the pen; he was sort OF phenoml-
mai penman the witness was here asked TO
take pen and ink and make simihtude OF
the flourish, bat objection was made and the
Court ruled it could not be done
Wiiness-he thought it could be initiated
very much more than il (the one in the will
. al H.. .,4l,.r- he fhan HaSerfbpH the
differences between the two ilourshes, show
ing what in his opinion had been added 10 the
genuine fourish): men generally made Hour
lshes under their signatures without hitting the
pen; he rather thought the pen OF the letter
was capable of making finer stroke but his
opinion rs Ia the pens used was not worth
ANYTHING; thought It was written with steel
pen. but could'i say; didn know what Tor
ger would ordinarily do; the object OF expert
( ism Is 20 ascertain what he did. not what he
would do: mentioned the case Of Bell IN Bal
timore, as one where . name on the face OF
a paper had been forged on the back OF It; the
letter indicated a difference in the writing, i
was gradual aud more marked as it proceeded
towards the bottom Of the page: there would
not Likely be a marked change when the WI
ter turned over; persons accustomed To WI
ing. when they turn over seem to take fresh
start. and then vary as they &C down the page;
remembers a case where he bad observed this
IN some record books IN the city court. GA
which be- had been eFoSs.eNamined by M
Machen. Court adjourned to Saturday
HAGEEsrovx. Juue l0th, lsS2.
Court met 81 9 o clock and the cross exam
ination ct Mr. keeueF was resumed: iae let
ter was written originally in an ink similar 10
MAYNARD q Novcs'. an ink not exactly black,
hat uhen heavily used becomes black; nearly
all inks show different eolors under different
circumstances " writing; the forgery was IN
an ordinary black ink; didn'l say i was DIT
ferpnt, hadn examined as % that; the letter
was certainty gone over 81 certain points With
a different ink: az some points this was a
hrownish. reddish. analiuc ink; The witness
being asked what kind Of iuk = inrger would
likely use 70 touch up q writing. ofsecfioa vas
made and ssstaiHF,iii the letter had not bsen
iampered with by the same person who wrote
the wiil. ia his oplnion; the hrsi pnlnt tam
,srsd wiih Vas the last letter ii Inform ~
H. 6rst line. shsfp were fnuF strokes 20 the
IN instead Of three, and the two eesiTe
ones appeared 80 have keea tampered with BY
The reddish ink; a loop had heea nlade IA ihe
letter III s'tn IN the 9th Ane with tbe red.
a5sh Spk. witness here mentioned several
other r.,ints whcF,. the letter kad been touch-
al npl; these circumstances caused his optn-
son. a. 10 the tbs punctuation ., Eliza Ann
Ryrrs. the eatirc difference q the INK. ths
.iffrsfu, character II the dots 70 others N the
letter. aad tkc fact that the usaie Vas net 20
dotted IA ashgF parts Il the letter sud vas -
dotted IL the wsii. stiffness then pointed aat
other dots. vhieh BE sad vere different, siia
described th,. diacrencgs; taupenag vita
shs wrritins. changing letters or making dots
after i was written IN different eriofesl lnkr
vens,ld afford AZ increased facility g. detect
the fact tbas ihry wefe - made, sad . ~osid
aos, Il puald ~ fact and sqala nei 10 me
sfsuiau III the person Who did ~ psftssie
Z s.snaeiiues enabled him ~ evi a. the oI'snsas
F 81 ~, person who did f. and IN tbs essr he
Thought i did; his opinion wss that The rea-
sssp he dots. &c weFe made in the lssieF Al
Ter the forgery was coHmitiss3t was iaaf .
80 Eoand = auiikn the lfifer' i sas ssasfs.'a
aro and thea the letter t0uched % MAKE
T 4 ia. the iorgury; qsesiiaa--~hy dldns the
fare,.y sui the EtiEA Ann kyers ~ the bottom
/ ~ fhs Estfrta Witmess--no targgr wvald exer
f IL .sise,,rrrrA II they didf make mistakes :
T shey took she hrss one insmel IN he letter
aud overlooked the others7 his epnion NHs
fhp wi3l was Eritsen soine coassderabie tihac
alier The paper bad hevoHe wora; the eAsen'
deFing bad bseusac hEoSsaf me g'aAiHs
~ bnrkcn. handling whsn she paper tsss
Z folded SOMETHING'S dia Ihis; wherc The writing
va sot sasnYsrvd wigh, there sas no stain IN
~. psfsr. when i crossed the creasrSs iwst.
ness then Ioaaird ont places where me Niu
had been touched ups no expert torger
& waaiA have done tins; there Nerc es1acn'
ca of e0ussrsini aad efforts 70 disguise Toe
handwriting OF the person uho Nruie thr
{ all. and evidence al an attemp. % INITIATE
3 the handwriting Of the letter he dldnt say
the man wka wrote. said the peTseni ~ s-S
nothing IN the Srstsng itself, az Z appeared 70
hsm theae, separate N itself 70 Case an
7 49, t4 =
man. wugnaa. boy OF girl / The greater nam
~ II letters IN The viii wCre most banging
Is. not Ike those in The letter the witness
named over usaay Of them. Npald have 30
Z rnak,. an examination 10 name Others bad
sns,le the examination so{eiy 20 discover dis
rretancies. II there were discrepancies, and
{ MAJ they zere he hsd to do both and ex-
anime a. the same time. 20 zee II the letters Of
the two siapers wcre similar had pointed ont
some that were the capital a some Of
them. the final # in yoarselfi one or two
~ .he initial VS.. some leE % the RS I;
tbat circumstance woald Indicate there had
been AN effort 20 initiate he had picked
ont the letters for the parpOse Of showing The
GENERAL regularity in the letter and the ifreg-
9lnrity. which was uniform in Il Il showed
/ that one vas . regular uastudied hand. and
she other An initiated hand the paper before
him showed 10 a very remarkable degree that
Hoppe wrote IN a regular, uniform way and
made his letters Ia q uniform manner the
uniformity in one and the want Of uniformity
n the other. was one Of the circumstances
that went to make up the test, that one wash
written hv the same as the other; the bang
ling dissilnilarity would indicate a lack OF
( ability OF the person as a torgers not 50
much an absence Of attempt to initiate, as the
forretfulaess Of the torgeF IA making the LEI
tiers the evidence Of facts 10 the eye, some
times gave him fair proof Of what the iaten-
,ions were the dissimilariiy OF letters must
BE- taken with other circumstances; the word
give in the 2Oth line Of the letter, was IN
terlined after the original writing was made,
and IN a darker ink the ink didn't Stain the
paper there we're some indications II was not
Ike the other writing il was rounder aud
heavier II didn't lock much Ike Hoppe put
Il there; had known instances where same
thing had been done /: in the Noah WorthIng-
ton viii case, the forger wrote 4 lines above
and below 10 conceal the forgery y was
more than likely a forger wonld do that IA
touching up the letter the person who made
the forged viii was Of ordinary exPertness
very frequently words were omitted IN forged
papers, more frequently letters; this was one
Of the circumstances showing the nervous
ness OF the party at the time same eircnm-
stance might. or might not, indicate nervous
ness in a writing made by a man 40 years
old the nervousness o. the old man and tor
6 4 ,....,,. F,.,.,,, different eireum