The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1882-06-24
THE HOPPE WILL CASE.


| ceSStNeiN eNclleu. anu Sdiu JbStllnuS hllSit bc
/ taken in by the Orndorffs if he thought pro-
/ per, but would have to leave his farm, and he
4 had good man to take his place; this was
about 1876; witness couldn't name other oc
/ easions, but knew him often to be in bad
humor and heard him express disappruval of
! Josephus conduct, but couldn't state the
particular words which occurred at the time.
The Court said this testimony was admitted
under peculiar circumstances. and the party
must give the language of Mr.. Hoppe as nearly
| as he could not his conclusions from what
! Mr.. Hoppe said.
1 Witness-couldn't express exactly what the
/ language was; it was disapproval; didn't re-
member his words, but the conclusion in wit
ness mind was that Hoppe disapproved very
/ often of what Joe was doing.
! The Court-that won't do.
/ Witness-thought he was acquainted with
/ the handwriting of Hoppe; had no doubt he
was; had seen the letter and will before.
1 Col. Maulsby-is or is not that paper THE
/ Will body and signature, in the handwriting
of Jno. Henry Hoppe?
I Witness-when this was first shown him he
I believed il to be the handwriting of Jno.
/ Henry Hoppe; believed it from the first time
he saw 1T; thought it was; there was nothing
absolutely certain; his opinion was from the
4 best information and knowledge that he could
! paper was at the Bank; he was driving past,
4 Byers was on the pavement and said when
J witness returned he wanted to see him; when
{ he returned he found Byers and D-. Herring in
: the directors room: as he went in DIR. Herring
/ retired: Byers showed him the letter; made no
comments on it; read it; was not positive as to
t the words. but his impression was that Byers
said it was just received; had been mislaid this
was ruled out by the Court, as nothing that
was said was admissible); witness recognized
/ then the handwriting; believed II to be JHo.
( Henry Hoppe 5; DIR. Hering, he thought, left
I the Bank, and did not return while he aud
I Byers were there together; when their con-
versation terminated Byers left; DIR. Herring
and Byers did not leave the Bank together;
witness thought he did remain until DR.. Her
ing returned; expressed surprise that witness
should have formed the judgment he did about
7 that paper; witness thought he said | don't
suppose Il amounts to anything; he supposed 1t
was a memorandum of Hoppe intentions in
1 1875, and never knew until this case that il
was not necessary to have two witnesses to
will of personal property; didn't reeoilect OF
seeing Byers and DIR. Herring together again
that day; Hopes office was occupied with
desks, chairs, stove, and books and papers in
shelves around the walls; there was counter
in front Of where he sat: one part Of i was
foot higher than the other part on which he
generally wrote; there was a table at one of
! the windows, which he used in making his
survey papers, OF when he was writing more
carefully or particularly, or when II was n
little dark; there was generally almost At all
times a number Of inkstands and = number Of
pens: the pens particularly attracted witness
attention, because they were mos; always
rather bad wheR witness used them; there
were not more than OF ;; supposed there
, were I or . inkstands ut different points; ithe
witness was here shown the letter.; had never
seen Hoppe put water in his inkstandsi had
seen him take his PEN and trace the lines be
had written to make them more distinct; he
was very particular in anything be woald do
in that way. and always anxious tia, i should
be done well; had seen him retrace letters To
make them more perfect; had seem writing q
his aimoe; ike a copy plate, and some very
poor. he would sometimes write with y Ercat
deal of care. and al ether times hastily; bad
seen a good deal Of disparity in has writings ~
well a. IN witness own.
Il Cross exAmiued---didn't remember Anything
{ being put on the letter IN the Bank. such as
the part IT n revenue stamp: didn't hear Pr
Herring and Byers converse on the subjects
the letter was considerably broken when be
saw II there; bad secs a great deal ef HopIse $
writing didu't profess - be an expert; made
his letters somewhat uniform; il b. was shoWu
y paper with IS o made in oae saw by him,
and another payer with 81 o's differently
made, Il would indicate that this party was
not writing the same wAy all ths tme; would
/ expect 10 knd the same letters alikes . Errat
many RS shere ran into the next letter. there
z Was some difference between the two; didn !
+ know whether il indicated different hand
sritiag; Il would not entirely indicafc DIFF
I ferens writer; BE- tkeaght one man wrote both
sides Of that paper, and believed q 20 have
: been written ~ Hoppe; there wAs = diaerenc't
. in he hnai Rs, bus he had examined PaFzsTs
! with rs ike them; he coalabi point one in
( the viii like an on The letter side withpus
taking 3 great deal Of trouble; he supposed i
vas writtse on the ly leaf of bankers CIR
cnlar. which y very thin; knaw as very dita-
{ caig 20 write on the opposite SIDE when there :
Z writing on Que side; on the letter SIDE he
{ eaulda.f see that the ink came tkrouKh; dfan :
Z see much differences hetweeu the tWa hoaFishes
( a. 10 the ink coming thnoagh; hooked = little
like the ink bad gone through N the flourish
under Hoppe; there vas y IN tbs viii
whirh penetrated 10 the other side snd was
rot opposite aay writing in the letter; the
Z broken edges looked somewhat 50 stained
! il might have been done With a bad pens
Z eonlda't tell why Il vas not stained 81 either
places than the ereases. this might have been
wristea with n bad pen, and in passing over
the creases the pen vent through the paper,
che letter whs hFuken, the envelope vas NOS,
/ but dirty; coEldn't tell which was most worni
where the crease crossed Hoppe IN the sigma.
tnre i was not stained, hug where Il crossed
the flourish Il was stained; the erase was less
in the l0arish; dida' know thai Hoppe folded
the letter before signing L; i WASH usual for
/ people 10 do that; couldn't explain Why the
crease was not stained as the name and vas u
I the flourish; be was exceedingly intrinsic with
( Hoppe. who consulted him about investments
and his property; didn't know any one outsids
Of his family more intimate with him..
Re-examined-Col Manlsby--do you see
1 anything in the formation Of the o's on this
SIDE and on that 70 induce yOa 20 think this Is
not written by the same person as thatG This
question was objected TO. bat the objecsiou
wSs overraled By the Coarf-
witness--hadn'f any idea Of this matter -
70 o's; he had examined the RS and SIS n
papers he had in his possession.
Judge Pearrc asked If the differences e
wh;ch his attention had been called had A.
fecfed hisopinioag
Witness-my mind IS unchanged; (he va.
thea shown the paper drawn up at IaReytoSp
by Mr. Hoppel; this 20" looks more like an
'sr;'' there was small loop IN Il, he thought
and q curl 10 the left; 1.-THE Court stopped tbs
examination on that paper in that papel
gthe letter and will the iRk had gone thFougl
far enough 10 make mark ON the other side.
il laight have been folded by Hoppe and thai
written afterwards, but he coEldn'f say: their
was a0thing certain 10 show; witness atten
ten was here called 20 . o IN the viii, aud
he said he didn't think there we're loops il
them.
Col. b. w. Bennett-haa resided in West
minister rs or IA years before that on Sam
Creek, Carroll county; knew Hoppe about y
q years; was Treasurer from 1870 20 lss0 and
was nov President Of the Westminster Saw
ings Institution; was also q director Of tbs
FArnIsrs and Mechanics National Bank s ol
10 years; was 4 member of the Ceasstitutiona
Convention Of 1867; was never very intimate
with Hoppe; used 10 call ON him 10 spend 1
social evening sometimes in the winter and j
he was in q good humor would stay, IL not
would leave; had seen him write frequently
and very often seen his signature; had his sig
nnture and had seen his writing in deeds
mortgages, &C.; they lived opposite each othel
the last years of his life, and would visit hin
in his office; he never spoke to witness abou
Josephus TO his recollection; was acquainted
with his writing (shown the wilIl to the hes
of his knowledge it struck him very forcibly
/ to be his handwriting; in his opinion il was
both the body and signature; his opinion wal
! certain opinion; Hoppe pretty general,
wrote in the same way; his handwriting diff
fered at times; had seen him trace over hi