The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1885-01-28
crRcuMsrANrlAL EVIDENCE.
Testimony TO show that n Blank wat
Printed After the Timr of Its Writ
ten Date.

Some very interesting circumstantial evil
dence was recently given in proceeding
before Judge Ingraham, in the Superior
Court, New York. which has escaped notice
hitherto as the case was not before Jury,
and no reporters were present at the time.
A result of this eyidence-the arrest of two
men on charge of perjury--has been an
nounced, without description of the testi-
mony on which the charge was based. The
following account of the matter was giver
to-day by a gentleman familiar with the
facts of the ease:
On September 81, 1888, the firm of F.
Mayer q Co., extensive jobbers in woollens
vt No. 32 White Street, made an assignment
20 Simon Danzig, very much to the sur
prise of their creditors. Their liabilities
were about 50. 400, 900, and the nominal as
sets about 81 500, 900. The firm had been
established some twenty years, and up to
the time of their failure had possessed ex-
cellent credit. The members of the firm
were Ferdinand and Benjamin Mayer, father
and son. In course of time, ex Postmaster
General Thomas l.. James Was substituted
for Mr.. Danzig MS assignee. Some of the
heavy creditors made charges that the FIRMS
| assignment was made with intent to de-
fraud, and recently James I. Swift & Co.,
| Of No. SO Worth Street, brought suit in the
Superior Court to have the assignment SET
aside
1t was in the prosecution of this suit that
the evidence alluded to was produced.
Among the preferred liabilities of the sus-
pended firm was promissory note for $11, =
600, given to Martin Clayburgh, of Chicago,
for money loaned, and dated July 10, 1881.
Testimony was given by the Mayors, father
| and son. that this was bona fide indebted
ness, and that the note was signed ut the
time of its date. The plaintiffs disputed
the defendants claim, and made an investi-
CATION which produced sensation in
court when its results were revealed. The
blank form of the note in question was
printed by Arthur & Bonnell, stationers
md bore their imprint, giving their address
as No. "a Nassau Street. Testimony was
given by the stationers to the effect that the
blanks, of which this note was one, were moi
printed until September. 1882, and that
they did not occupy the premises No. GA
Nassau Street until May, 1882 more than
nine months after the date of the note
The sequel of this unexpected testimony
was the arrest of both the Mayors, upon a
charge of perjury in reference to the date
of the note. They were taken before Judge
I'ildersleeye, and held in $40, 900 bail each
In conversation on the subject to-day
reference was made to curious case whicl
occurred in Massachusetts some years ago
in which n will offered for probate wa
proved forgery by evidence that tho paper
on which it was written was not manufac-
tured until nfter the date of the document.
This was clearly shown by the water mark
of the paper and the testimony of the manu.
facturers. Mention was also made of n case
in England in which an alleged old deed
WIS proved to be fraudulent because of lts
phraseology, setting forth that ii was excut-
ed in a certain year of the reign of :. King
George l." OF course, that sovereign was
never mentioned rs the first of his name
until he had been Succeeded by name
sake, but was known in his lifetime simply
as King George. Nee Tarh E ,st.ins
Post