Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1884-04-25
sHARON-HILL.
Defendant Desires Expert Testi.
mOny Om IN Contract.

Defendant Desires Expert Testi.
mOny Om the Contract.
ESPECIAL TO TIE sENrInEL.I
SAN Francisco, April 24.-During the
course Of the Sharon divorce case this
morning, Gen. Barnes made the following
statement in order that he might be
allowed 10 introduce the evidence Of an ex-
pert OF handwriting: 1--WE don't deny
that Mr.. Sharon's signature is there, but
we do say that the writing Of this contract
was written after the signature was made,
and we wish to prove this to the court.
We claim that this contract Is q forgery.
The signature, William Sharon, Nevada, is
written on the first line of the first page.
We wish to show. also, that the plaintiff
writes a very bold hand, averaging about
five words to the line, whereas this letter
averages II words to the line" At the
time OF this writing, the question as to
whether expert testimony shall be taken or
not had not been decided.
Henry @. Hide, attorney-at-law and
expert in handwriting, was called, and
testified: / am q member Of the San
Francisco Microscopical Society. l have
frequently been called upon to make ex-
aminstions of handwriting as IN expert.
Q Barnes-I propose to ask the wit
ness concerning this document, holding
up the marriage contract.
Judge Tyler objected until after the
execution Of the instrument had been
denied.
Gen. Barnes-This testimony does not
relate to the signature.
Judge Tyler-No evidence can be put on
this instrument unless the party executing
it had denied it under oath.
Col. Flourney reminded the Court that
the plaintiff had testified that she wrote
the document. Therein there is no dis
pute about it. The expert cannot be called,
except to deny that the plaintiff had writ
ten the instrument. He cannot be called
at all in relation to the body Of the instru-
ment. No mans opinion can be taken
concerning the body Of the instrument.
Gen. Barnes said: Written here is the
alleged marriage contract on Q half-sheet
of note paper. We do not propose to deny
that the words civilian Sharon, Nevada,
Aug. s, 80" we're not written by the de-
PENDANT, but W. propose to show that the
body of the document was written after and
over the signature, and that the document
is to all intents and purposes q forgery.
There is a studied attempt at contraction
on the document amounting to 40 per cent
in some cases. We want to show that the
signature is written on the first page of a
sheet OF note, and that the declaration is
written on the other side Of the sheet. We
want to show that there is in some places a
| systematic and careful o~vercrowding of
words to get in the necessary declaration.
We want to show that the plaintiff ordi-
| narily writes q bold hand, and that
SO far from writing 10 or IL words TO a
line, she only ~customarily writes four or
five. We propose to show, by the aid of
| the microscope. something connected with
the folds Of the paper. We propose to
show that the note paper wal originally
opened, and that it was carefully folded,
and that the instrument was written after
| the folds had been made. We propose to
| take mp the paper and carefully analyze it,
to show that the language of the instru-
| ment, over and above the signature, was
| written in after the plaintiff had, in some
| of her forages, obtained possession of it.
Judge Tyler asked the witness whether
be had ever made his calculations from the
| original document. The witness replied
in the negative, and said, only from q
photograph. Judge Tyler then contended
| that the testimony was not admissible,
az the calculations were not made from
the original document.
Gen. Barnes replied that he proposed to
have the witness examine the original and
| give his testimony thereon.
Judge Tyler said that there were only
| two persons on earth who knew whether
Mr.. Sharon signed that instrument, and
they were the plaintiff and defendant.
| The best evidence on that point must be
| the parties themselves, and secondary evil
| dence could not be permitted until the best
| evidence had been called. Judge Tyler then
| commended that the instrument was the
best evidence Of les ~genuineness. If it Is
a forgery, great care would have been
taken to write all the words in the same
| style and within equal crowding of words.
| 1t is apparent that the man who dictated
| the contract never intended to keep 1t,
| but after getting possession OF her person,
| intended to cast her off.
Judge Sullivan stated that there were
some questions which we're patent on their
face; that the testimony was not compe-
tent, but each question would have TO be
| determined as 1t arrived. He did not
| think it admissible that the witness could
| offer testimony on the number of words
| in a line, that the Court would have to de-
| termine that for himself. But there were
some matters upon which q microscope
would be an assistance, and upon such he
| would hear evidence.