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

when John G. Byers' farm was sold: was there; may
have made remarks there about fraud and Byers;
went there i'll an official capacity as executor of \.
R. Durbin. whose estate was insolvent Byers was
large creditor TO the estate; bid for the property
feeling il his duty To make 1t bring what 1t was
worth bid it up to So per acre If he didn't have the
to pay for 1t had credit enough 10 get them;
didn't have revolver in MS POCKET nor reach Tor;
remembers he had some words of an unpleasant
character with Mrs. Byers; she was bidder on the
farm and pitched into him Tor bidding; based MS
opinion about the handwriting upon the appearance
and general character of il: had never seen that
pointing to disputed signaturel at the end of J.
Henry in any of the Jno henry hopes signatures;
had loop TO the in his other writing on both
nencad shove IiSb,Iv and termnsted heavy when
he went to examine the paper in the Registers office
had with him writings of Hoppes done about same
time undisputed letter; here they are produces
them had noticed the little more particularly
because Il O singular thing admired Hopes
writing and thought he wrote a pretty hand, and
would watch him when writing he didn't always
write his of the same size; said TO be near
so when he died. not iufirm in 1873, but went
down rapidly in the last year two of his life: he
always wrote his signature in same way, but little
difference between these two signatures in the
general appearance in the letters and in the forma
ton of the letters; the appearance TO him was so
10 the best of his knowledge and belief and that
as far any truthful man could swear TO anything
he never saw.
VIM. A. Wampler resided in Westminster and his
principal business was surveying: was acquainted
with hoppe aud had seen him write, but he could
hopes writing in business of surveying almost
constantly; hoppe did great deal of surveying and
cOnyeyancing. and his papers came into witness
hands deeds prepared by him and papers he had ae
knowledged a Justice; had also xamined Hopes
own private papers since his DEATH had the let
ters before from the knowledge he had OF Hopes
and-writng neither the body nor signature of the
disputed letter was IL the signature WAS more appar
ent as not his the other letter struck him fore
IDLY as being hopes handwriting and he believed 1t
10 De his writing also the signature TO be his; the
turn over" to him didn't look like Hopes writing;
the flourish extremely heavy. he had never seen
any 30 heavy, the p's in the undisputed signature
were like witness had seen Hopes always made,
while in the disputed signature the second parts
were Joined To the main stem; the flourish to the last
letter in the undsputed seemed TO have been
made with one dash Of the pen. while in the dis
puted IL seeInedsthere was some difficulty in max
ing il: in his opinion the flourish ON the undisputed
letter had been everyone, made heavier; using his
glass there was slight difference in the shade OF
the ink ON the main stem OF IT, there was distinct
difference In the Us ia the signatures; generally
Hoppe'S had no loop. while in the disputed IL was
looped; never Hoppe that he knew of. write
his signature With loop 10 the y: there was more
thsS in the undispufesl signature there was diner
ence In the as a marked difference IN the names
Eliza Ann Byerss" also in the final RS In the word
dollars In the Disputed was an which he did not
see any like In the undsPuted letter also some DIFF
hrences between the & discovered some dlns
was Llacker tinge than that of the disputed letter
Cr,ISs- ExAmined-Didnt profess 10 be an expert;
did not mean 90 say the dispnted letter, as matter
OF fact was not Hoppes handwriting in his opinion
II was not. the direction, &c ON the envelope he
thought was Hopes hand wrsinss u nc nae re-
Cpfvei Il without examination and not scrutini1ed
a. taken II for granted Il was HupFeS but u some
one had asked him ~ examine IL, would then have
pronounced the disputed letter aforsesy; there were
very few PERSONS who's, hand writing he recogn xes
Whenever he his fathers preiared % testify
10 it alsS an unses aud Hoppe'ss had been survey
inc ali last winter with HopFrs papers there Were
other signataTes ne would siisnt % ldstliy
helped % form his opinion, The witness was thcn
sr,rs examined at length IN relereacs 70 = Iost-
ing cut these be thought similar and thuse which
s.iferrsi ~ enntinucd two letters In the paper
were alike counsel never saw two letters alike; no
two things were alike. il = similarity no Two
thInES IN ART are alike and this writing Is art
This iiftle DISCUSSION crcatcf much amusement
James A { Fsovd had resided in Westminster IS
wears Vas a member Of the bar. knew hoppe sad
wa acquainted with ashland ritings had seen him
write. eo1idn'i say anything about any particular
s,s,,,,.s hand u fitting but didn't know thought II
not bis signature had seen The paper oeioFe 10
sr,ss couldn't give one single ehAEsc-
tcFise AZ Heppes signature. there Was siFots re-
semblaBee hefwesn The two sgnetures: bad expreas-
sxi an eptuioH hsforr be was xamtnotieSi
John l.. Reifsnider had lived in Westmin-
ster about - years: was acquainted with
Hoppe for probably 80 years; thought he was
with his handwriting; had seen him write;
locking at the letters. objection was made TO
his comparing the two and the court sustained
il. witaeSs-As tn the body Of the writing
ldispntesli he was not perfectly clear in has
mind whether II was or was not Hoppe $; as
90 the signature he vas positive Il was not;
had seen the paper before At bsCamara' ;
photograph gallery.
Cross. Examincd-Had gone there to see
it from earnestly; Hoppe vas a very inhrm
man for sexernl years before bis death; had
seen hira wear shade ever his eyes and
wearing blue goggles; think nj the fanerAl Of
David Shrivcr he fell at fall length ON his
back
+. q. Grimes had lived ia Westminster
since 1851; Was railroad agent there; was &C
auain,ed with Hopes handwriting bat not
largely 50. saw il occasionally; had seen him
write; thought be would know his hand-wrii-
ing; the body Of the disputed letter seemed
very doabtfal 10 him from the general appear
ance. ~ L. the signature il resenabled Hopes
bat he coald hardly say whether Hoppe wrote
!, OF not; wosldn't ike to state.
Denton Gehr resided in Westminster, and
had been teller Of the First National Bank
wars; was acquainted with Hoppe all wit
ness life; with his haad writing principally IN
checks aud endorsements On check had sesn
him write his signature al the bank, in draw
ing checks and frequently endorsing them for
detuosii; In bis opinion the disputed letter Was
moi Happ1ss hand. Writings as TO the signature
il was not as be had frequently seen Hoppe 5
signAfarr-
Cross. Examined--Had seen Hopes sig-
nature coming aP in she ears; looking over
the EentlenaeRs shoulders who were looking
Al i: thew we're Reifsnitler, Lynch, Grimes and
BiIhaxslsa: had shown his brother, George
Gehr. 4 paper with the Higuature the morning
he had eoale TO HagerstowR; he was shutting
out from his recollection all this and iestitying
from his recollection OF Hoppe hand writing
before his death; he always looked At the en-
dorsements ON checks before entering them
in the books; did this TO compare the endorse
mens with the way the check Was drawn up,
NOT particularly Ia eriticise the handwriting;
had also seen Hoppe afhx his name TO eertiti-
Gates as Justice when be swore in the directors OF
the bank, &c; also had seen him endorse ground
rs,t receipts; the disputed letter in bis mind
vas not written in the style Hoppe wrote, with
a stiH hand, straight up aud down and partic-
alarly straight aerOss the page; since witness
went into the bark never took notice OF
Hoppe being in6rm in bis handwriting.
The Court at this point, having consulted
some authorities To which they had been re-
ferred. modified their decision TO the wit
nesses looking at the undispated letter 10 re-
fresh their memory Of what Mr.. Hoppe hand
writing was and said il could be done.
Edward Lynch had lived in Westminster y
years. and knew Hoppe since he was old
enough 10 notice any persons had been con
stable two years while hoppe MAS magistrate
in the same meighborhood; had also elerked at
sales at which Hoppe was anciioneer; had
seen him write frequently; WAS satisfied IN has
mind that neither the body nor signature Of
the disputed letter was Hoppe handwriting;
had never seen the letters before; was satisfied
Hoppe wrote the undispated letter; he did
not write the ''turn over.
Cross- examined-Me that was his opln-
lou. it was strong; George Edwin Hoppe, one
of the parties to the suit was his partner IN
part; had Hoppe signature made As late Us
1873; had seen him write since but couldn
come at the date; the difference was so great
between the disputed letter and Hoppe gen
eraI writing he could very easily decide IN his
mind; counsel wouldn't hnd letter d like
that {pointing to onel in any sheet OF paper
Home wrote; he would make better I'd
than that; the RS were different; some of the
as were different; witness looked at those IN
the disputed letter and knew this, because they
were made in "a way different from the way
Hoppe made them; he did not need to look
at the undisputed but took il from his general
knowledge of Hopes handwriting.
p. IL. Irwin-Had lived in Westminster "A
wears and was a civil engineer; knew Hoppe
quite well, had seen him write his signatures
but didn't think he had seen him write pa
per; had been connected with the Western
MARYLAND Railroad as engineer when Hoppe
was treasurer. Objection was made to Mr..
Twins testifying as to the body of the writing
lint the Court overruled it, saying ii was for