The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1882-06-17

the color of the ink; the Eliza Ann Byers,
etc. was not written with the same ink as the
undisputed letter Byers had told him of the
letter, received by Mrs. ByerS beforeh er mar
riage during the winter after Hoppe's death;
couldn't remember that Byers said the latter
had said, ''he (Hoppe) would give her
child's part if she would return; witness
found the SLAP spoken of in the undisputed
letter in a box after Hopes death, wrapped
and tied up with the endorsement on it the
same as the entry in the Ledger; the endorse
ment was not ''for Eliza Jane Byers'': didn't
pretend to say Hoppe never made letters of
the character of the disputed letter but witness
had never seen them in any of his writings
his checks were in the Bank; witness had
PROBABLY 20 or so of them in his possession
there Hoppe was not in the habit of taking
up his checks; left them in the Bank witness
took out all his checks for 1875 and some
others supposed he would be called to testify
to the general character of Hopes hand
writing; had examined Hopes signature to
the Checks of 1875. as atfording him the best
means of seeing the signature of the time the
letter was written had spoken from his
general remembrance about the Y; had also
examined Hopes signature on 4he Banks
dividend book; about half of those on the
present book didn't remember to have ever
seen his signature without a flourish under it
had frequently seen him wearing the leather
gearing; according to witness recollection it
was on the front finger alone also had seen
him with string around his finger and the
pen between it and the finger; when witness
attended him as physician, he had frequently
spoken of the steadiness of his hand. and held
pen down on paper to show witness how
steady IT was; the last time Hoppe was at
meeting of the Directors of the Bank was in
k..t ixt nd
had been for some months with difficulty
got to the Bank, the difficulty was on account
of his breathing.
The Court here adjourned until Thursday
morning
HAGERsTowx, June Sth, 1882.
The Court met at o clock and the cross
examination Of DIR. Herring was resumed
Witness-attended Hoppe as his physician
during the fall OF 1880; saw him frequently
he was suffering from large and painful
ulcer the tongue aud was in very feeble
general condition; had attended him prior to
1850, but not frequently he did not frequent
~ call in physician only attended him a
day or two at a time.
The witness here went over again the con
versation he had with Byers at the Bank,
Sept. l2ih. 1881 Byars had said he came to
show him the letter was pretty sure he show
ed Byers the credit IN the Ledger; is certain
he gave Byers exact words, as 10 his SAYING.
IL suppose the same person who wFOte the
other side; witness was then executor OF
estate Of David II. ShriyeF administrator Of
Hopes estate, etc, aud bis duties kept him
constantly occupied.
Objection was made To the going into the
details of all the Doctors emPloytneuts aud
the Court sustained H.
Reeollocted this conversation, because he
vas deeply impressed By the production Of
that paper he remembered and continued 20
remember what was said; coaldh't remember
other conversations
Witness then ret.eztt-d what had taken place
At Mrs Hopes didn't remember whether i
was PRIOR OF subsequent 10 his saying ''shey
hadnt anything 70 do With Il. that Mrs
Hoppe had said il looked like lioprc's band
writing: Byers had twice suggested a meeting
Of the heirs for q compromise had said 4
didn't amount 10 anything because be thought
il wasn't Hopes handwriting and also be-
cause be shoaght i didR a Rmuaus 50 viii :
be gave his testimony 10 the bes; Of bis Feeol
lection.
Witness then reprsled the conversation
with iyers 90 the stresi. and What tfauspsred
Al Mr.. Roberts uifce dian't recellees Shea
be trss eoayersed about the y.apeF with the
other administrators OF Ne Roberts Azsaia ;
than = week didn't fs.colicci wko hrss spoke
Of the paper as = forrcry had mentioned the
paper 10 Col. LoaEucil on the day Of -
presentation % him Cel. i.saxSsu vas
Prpsidaut Of the Hank ef uhieh Sisness sas
Cashier
what did Col. i.aagwen replyf''
Objected to and et.iccsion sassaiaea.
Iha yoa a. that time mad aag consider Col.
I.oaxwglls iuasnsrs quits - good - year
own, on tina, sni,iecss
Objected % aad objection sustained.
OFsiinzrSly wove glasses be had eas uss3
aH0tiaer pair when writing ard residing sissin {
think be used them ihai dsy didn'sH them
eopstausly until pithiR the last ssS moashS J
aidn Fryollecs having a,aae say rHAlasHAiS0H
ct Hoppe's sigEsInrrs ahtl The paper had
been presented to the OFphans CoaEs. :
seek after tina, had the - er % checks be
examined tprodlacrsl tien, the signatures arr
alike IN : general view 81 ihcm s1aae kaSs ;
larger aud same = sInalluf esrl from tSe e /,
thought be had srea HoPre's signatures
vsrioasly made 10 rrspect 10 the '-e and the
esfl
Objection being made. lhe Court rsis,i that
The checks could l-e sinply used as guide %
the COUNSEL in askiuE Questions. aad nas !.
put IN evidence " used fpr the parpsss II
comparing the signaiBrs; fsrfhFF. thai The
aoutsssl nsass ahi4e t,g the answers - ths sis-
aess aad coald not psf the check in esisisuee,
or oaaiFa4scs him sless them
Wssnsss. thOaghs BE- had sid Heppe habit
was 70 nsake The sceoad paTi II bis P's dis
saaaeriesi ffum tbs arai saawa a cheek, she
hair iinr y coanerfra thrvv With hfss dssa
stroke the flourish ou some VI lhe checks i
blaeker than on oghrFs wiiae-s made 10 pgO-
f,sssiaRs 0f expeEiisln 0aly stated his kaasl-
rdse af Handwriting, q wss for eihers 70
jsdse L Wa pAri 81 bis duty - eashiet "a
Judge ~ the verifahleaess ~ signatures bad
paid money on a note on which three sigma.
turss weFe lorqsd the drecption "a that case
vas no, ia tie matter Of handwriting bat Ia
the identity Of the person to whoa the money
was paid neither Of the Rank officers kRcS
the identity Of the Fsfties whose signatures
wrre on the paper the money was paid 10 =
person, Who assumed toe name ol Cramrine,
bqt proved subsequently q be lnh4 VI EtsT.
bart. and Is nov IN The Pculieu;iag9 for the
forgery they supposed they knew the man
but we're deceived.
The Court here stopped further examina-
ton u lhis subject
HirEsss-TheFe vas very litiie difference
ssetween sae condition. Of the paper shea frsi
shown 81 hiIn, and is condition when frst
presented tere IN CoRrs. iereascs worn and
IN sos,e plares aparils you eonld seareely
handle i.
Witness attention Was here called to plaso-
graph of the signature nud rs SAID there vas
q hair stroke ia the u which he bad not seen
IN the undisputed Iaper, the day before IN
the o in Hoppe's, there was u slight mark Of
the pen a. II u Was continued from the II (;
that VAS IN no other 20 Of Hopes sigma
tire be had seen il didn't appear he vas
mistaken ia his testimony he had not seen
them made differently from what he described,
except in that photographs.
Re-ex1minel Mr. Rohsrts asked witness.
Did he have conversation with Hoppe before
his death, a. ~ making viii, in which Hop
ne had pointed 20 his grandchildren the
proper parties to get his estate and said he had
made no viii aud that the law made good
enough viii for him.
Objection was made and after argument the
Court reserved its decision 20 consult authori'
ties.
Witness finding Of the money in the
box was his FIRST knowledge that Hoppe held
q note against Mrs Byers in those checks
the joining OF the two parts OF the p occurred,
once in one p in each Of the two cheeks; and
not IN others thought those two showed that
Hoppe took his pen off aud then made the
second part of the p as he had described.
David keener-resides in Baltimore; has
had opportunities of studying the subject Of
handwriting. and always paid special attention
TO it !; first ms Secretary to the President and
warehouse clerk of the Canton Company in
Baltimore, from 1856 to 1862 then in the
auditor Office of the b. & D. r. II. Co, from
/