The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-05-29
DR.. STODDARD.
CONCLUDING TESTIMONY IN HIS
EXAMINING TRIAL BEFORE COM
MISSIONER RUGGLES.
He is Discharged OH the Ground
That the Offence Was
Not Proven.
Court met at 9 o'clock.

Court met at o'clock.
]. NJ. THORNTON
said: i am teller in the First Ma
tional bank of Austin, which place
have held for about two years. L
know DIR. G.. b. Stoddard; have known
him since he resided here; he has kept
an account at the First National
Bank during that time, except about
one year; now keeps an account at
the First National; has for about two
years past; in course of my busi-
ness have become acquainted with
his handwriting. L pay his checks
on inspection of his handwriting OF
the signature.
O.-Please look at this letter and
envelope (witness shown letter and
envelope in evidence) and state to the
court whether or not, in your opinion,
it is in the handwriting Of DIR. G. b.
Stoddard?
Al don't believe DIR. Stoddard
wrote this. 1t is my opinion, from
my knowledge of his signature and
writing, he did not. have examined
both the writing of the letter and the
address on the envelope.
ROSS-EXAMINED.
GLOW much and what character
of writing have you seen Of DR.. q. b.
Stoddard's?
Alt has been confined to the
drawing of checks, and to notes sent
me in regard to exchange and other
business matters. L think he wrote
me letter year ago from San An
tonic, in reference to his accounts.
His subsequent conversation confirmed
: n. L ...sAx 81 of q
Q.-Is the letter in existence?
A.-Being addressed to me person.
ally about matter of temporary i'm
portance, I guess it was destroyed.
Q-Are the checks in bank, drawn
by Stoddard, filled out by him?
AL saw one this morning that l
thought was.
Odd YOU examine more than one
check?
Al have but one now; the others
have been cancelled and returned.
Q-Do you recognize the writing In
this paper which l now submit to you
the paper signed &C. b. Stoddard,"
now in court-as DR.. Stoddard's hand
writing?
Al don't consider myself an ex-
pert, but don't think DR.. Stoddard
wrote the name sc. b. Stoddard'' where
it first occurs in the paper; nor the
figures and letters "3lst," the word
'sMarch" and the figure "a" in the
fourth line of the paper, nor the first
nineteen lines on the second page.
There is some similarity in the next
five and half lines, to DR.. Stoddard's
writing, but would not recoZnize it as
his, from my knowledge of his hand
writing. / think he wrote the rest of
the writing in said paper, to-wit: the
final signature, the name &c. b. StOd-
dard" in the second line above the
final signature, and the writing on the
first page not already referred to.
BY THE COMMISSIONER.
Q.-Have you ever seen DR.. Stod-
dard writer
Al don't know that 1 have, but
would not state positively. may
have, but am not positive.
Q-Would you say that you are &C
quainted with DR.. Stoddard's hand
writing?
Al have been sufficiently &C
quainted with his signature to pay his
checks, and have never had one come
back yet, and he has always acknowl-
edged the genuineness of his signature
on such occasions. He admitted his
having written to me the letter from
Antonfo, to which have already
6s,erred. think if received let
Ky from him that would recognize
~ writing without looking at the
~ snature, unless the writing was dis
lised. w o.Krs
Z a printer In the employ of Col. w. Y.
Leader, was the next witness. He
testified that the under contents of
the box in which the typeswere thrown
N the night of the depreciation upon
he Dispatch office, were not known
at the time of the receipt Of the letter;
that he and William Leader were the
first to discover the outrage on the
office; had not heard of w. Y Leaders
difficulty with the wood dealers, prior
to the depreciation; Leader was read
ing the letter when he came up.
e. j. NJ. LEADER,
sworn, testified as to the time he had
first seen the letter; said that it was
1.-TWO days. after the outrage on the
Dispatch office and one day after the
receipt of the letter when the contents
of the box, into which the type had
been thrown, was discovered; that
between $50 and 500 pounds of type
were raked into the box; part of the
type was thrown away because in the
filth; that no one slept in the Office.
Motion was made by Mr.. Hill, for
the defence, that all of the expert
testimony in the case be excluded, and
also the standard of coInparison-the
paper from the county court. Motion
overruled by the commissioner.
The defendant was discharged, on
the ground of the lnsutficiency of
timony to connect the defendant with
the offence charged.
THE COURTS.