Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-09-04
EXPERT TESTIMONY.
Gard from Mr. Jcnrdsn W. NsnrS'
RICHMOND, September 3, 1888.

as lnCOlTcCb as III MS lliSt iclbci' ahN
its spirit and tone are entirely at yari-
ance with that Of my letter to him. |
therefore deem it my duty to myself to
ask you to publish my letter in full.
and to correct few errors in his reply
thereto:
RICHMOND, August %, 1888.
Z. G. Rafin, Esq, Cuy'
Sir,-Your article entitled Re-
view Of the Coupon Cases in the IIust-
iDgs Court Of Richmond" &C., does me
great injustice by an erroneous state
ment of the facts pertaining to the part
which | took in said trials. | trust that
these mSstatementS were due to igno-
rance of the facts, and that It will only
be necessary to call your attention to
them to have you correct them in the
same public manner in which your origi-
nal article has been brought to the no.
tice Of the public.
| shall for the present content my
self with simply pointing out to you
the errors of which ! complain, and
giving you true statement of the facts,
that you may have an opportunity to
correct the same.
In the first place, under the heading,
" Not an Expert Expert, you say:
" Under Judge Latham the witnesses
were the same that had appeared in the
later cases before Judge Atkins, except
that the plaintiff introduced one, Mr..
Jourdan Maury, a young broker, who
testified that he was an expert in de-
tccting frauds in bank-notes. bonds.
coupons, and other public securities,
and proved that he had not, by declin-
ing to give an opinion on the bonds and
coupons which had been exhibited at
Lynchburg. and were again offered to
test his skill"
You are mistaken in stating that
testified that was an expert IN bank
notes. bonds, coupons. amt ofhrpHbhc
securities. What did state was that
| considered that | was an expert IN
national-bank notes, legal tenders. Gov
crnment bonds. and IUgin'a tar
recejraile coupons. did not pretend
to bc familiar with public securities
generally. other than those usually
bought and sold on our Richmond
stock Exchange. and So stated in my
evidence, before the coupons herein
after mentioned were produced aul
then expressly stated that was only
familiar with Virginia taN-rcceiyabl,
coupons. and not with noH-tdr-rcccra.
blt coUpoHs.
The coupons to which you allul,
were not taX-rccelyahle coupons. but
were Of an entirely distinct class from
those about whose genuinene>s | had
been summoned to testify. Under these
circumstances, the counsel for the
plaintiff objected to the introduction in
evidence Of the coupons produced by
you, and the Judge sustained the OBJ
lection. You are further mistaken in
stating that proved that was not an
expert by declining to give an opinion
on the bonds and coupons which had
been exhibited at Lynchburg and were
again offered here to test my skill.
First. did not decline to testify,
but was instructed by the judge, after
he decided to exclude the coupons pro-
duccd by you. not to 10 so.
Second. was not in Lynchburg,
know nothing Of the bonds and coupons
produced there. and, of course, my
skill as an expert was not tested there.
Third. No bonds were produced by
/ YOU or the Commonwealth while was
testlfying here, but simply the detached
coupons above described 4; and as was
not permitted by the Court to testify
concerning said coupons, Of course my
! skill as an expert was not tasted.
Therefore it was impossible for me by
this means to have proven that | was
not an expert, as alleged in your article.
There is one other paragraph to which,
as a witness, deem it my duty to call
your attention, for your ignorance of the
true state Of the fact, has caused you
to do the judge, the jury, and the wit
neSses great injustice therein. allude
to the paragraph which you style " A
Remarkable Procedure -" Grouping
/ Cases"
You state that he (meaning the judge
swore the jury in from five to sixty
cases at once, each cd,> hdrng Il sepa.
rate piantif, compelled them - hear
the evidence IN all at the same time,
prevented them from rendering a YER
dict in oae uDtH aHh0dJeen hoard, and
then mate them render all tie cerdicfs
AZ thu same time.
The above is an entirely incorrect
version Of what occurred.
The true state Of the facts in all
cases IN which testified is as follows
| That the jury was sworn in several
cases at a time IS true. but the testi-
mony in each case was given separately,
and Me reriict pds sigAed By the fore
man # the JUy IN each case betore
Was called upon to TESTIFY IN the merit
regret extremely that you should
have deemed it necessary to bring my
name before the public. To appear in
print is under any circumstances dis
tasteful to me, but / cannot in thi.
case permit erroneous statements TO e
unnoticed and uncorrected.
Respectfully,
JOURDAN W. MAURY, Jr.
Colonel Rufiin in his reply to tht
above letter again touches upon tn,
testimony which he alleges gave con
corning the noR-tax-receivable coupons
! produced by the Commonwealth anC
ruled out by the Court. The additiona
statements made by Colonel Ruflin arr
conclusively answered in the above let
ter. For if the coupons produced by
the Commonwealth were not in evi
dence they could prove or disprove no
thing, and it could not have been proyer
by them, or by anything said abou
them, that | was not an expert, as i
asserted by Colonel Ruiiin.
l. Il 1. ~ -