Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-10-16

PENDANT sums which Gen. Butler claims his
due for his services in prosecuting Mr.. Strongs
memorable claim against the District. filed
motion in the Equity Court to require the de-
PENDANT to produce in evidence an original
letter written by Gen. Butler TO Strong. As
stated in THE STAR it is maintained by Gen.
Butler and his counsel that a paper produced
by Mr.. Strong, purporting to have been signed
by Gen. Butler, agreeing that in case the
award made by the first referees in the case
was not confirmed by the court Gen. Butler
should receive only $4,000 his fee. is a
forgery. The letter which Mr.. Barrett's
motion calls for is wanted, according to the
statements Of the counsel. as evidence tending
TO prove the forgery. The motion. though of
course clothed in the formal language required
V rules of court, tells q omewhat interesting
story.
SAID TO BE A TRACING.
1t is claimed that the alleged forgery was
perpetrated by tracing over the genuine sigma
ture on the letter, which Mr.. Barrett wants the
court to make Mr.. Strong produce The
motion sets forth that the plaintiff has made
due effort to obtain the original letter. by
written and verbal notices TO Strong to pro-
duce the same and by the issuing and service
on him OF subpoena duces tecum. to produce
the same, but Strong has totally disregarded
the notices and the subpoena.
photo-llthograpLic copy of the letter
wanted. taken from Gen. Buffers letter book is
submitted as an exhibit. The substance of the
letter has no bearing on the present contention.
1t is submitted only to show the signature
THE GENUINE LETTER.
II was dated at Gen. Buffers law Office in
Boston, September 20, 1888. and was a follows:
Telegraph me as soon as you can who is APP
pointed referee. ana do not let Inc come on to
Washington until the new referee is appointed
and has signItied that ne will come to Washing
ton. L believe in going into the Treasury:
there is no difficulty about that can be in
Washington Sunday afternoon at 1 o'clock and
will see you and our friends there.
Yours truly, BENZ. F. BUTLER"
The signature as represented in the photo
lithographc copy in Gen. Buffers we'll
known scrawling, sprawliny hand. Inserted also
In the motion is photo-hthoSraphc copy of the
,greement dated April 3. 1889, with the sigma
80 'ttached which Gen. Butler says was
forged
rUrrINd ONE SIGNATURE OVER THE OTHER.
Then, attached exhibits to the notion
copies Of the two signatures, the genuine and
that alleged to be forged, are given on thin.
transparent paper. so that one SIGNATURE can be
placed over another to show their correspond
ence and that, as Mr.. Barrett claims, one was O
tracing of the other.
Mr.. Barrett makes an affidavit in support OF
his motion setting forth his effort to secure the
|
by reason of S,rong's disregard of the various
notices served on him.
After stating the facts concerning the send
ing of the letter to Mr.. Strong, according TO
''s information, Nj. Barrett says IN his afi-
davit
Il am also informed and believe that said
Strong in the month of August last carried said
| letter to the photo-lIthographic office of Bell
| Brothers. in this city, on { street between A.
and 9th streets northwest. and there had made
photo-i topographic copy OF the signature TO
aid letter, and that III the preparation for
! making the same portion OF each of the last
TWO lines of said letter well as the signature
thereto were reproduced on the negative The
part of said letter thus photographed is Identi-
al with the corresponding part Of said dupli-
cate original of the letter from Gen. Butler TO
sad Strong OF Septt mber 20, lsSS."
HOW THE LETTER WAS IDENTIFIED.
After stating that by this accident OF having
4 portion of the letter pho:o-hthographed with
the signature they were able TO identify the car
bon duplicate in Gen. Buffers letter book, Mr.
Barretts affidavit goes on to say: The sigma
ture to said letter, as appears from said ex-
niblts and ID, is identical in size, shape and
general appearance with the signature alp
pended to a certain paper writing put in evi-
deuce by said Strong. OF which said exhibit G
is a true photo-llthoSraphic copy, will fu ly
appear by placing the signature exhibit
rectly over the signature on exhibit ID. BY
holdinSthe signatures ON thiDpaper to the Ii ght,
Ar Barrett says, ''one can readily the extent
70 which the two signatures differ and such ex-
animation clearly shows that the two differ
only to the extent TO be expected in the tracing
OF the one from the other. l further make
OATH" says Mr.. Barrett, that have long been
acquainted with the signature of Gen. Benz. f.
Butler; that have scores of them In NV pos
session on letters received from him. and that
there is IN his signatures great lack of UNI
formity. but at the same time they all possess
certain characteristics which make them easily
identified"
THE PRIVATE SECRETARY.
Appended also TO the motion is an affidavit of
Gen. Buffers private secretary, Thos Z. Major,
to the effect that the photo-lithographic copy
produced is an accurate copy of letter written
by his type writer. signed by Gen. Butler and
sent to Mr.. Strong, the carbon copy being
bound in Gen. Buffers letter book lie states
also that a reply was received from Mr.. Strong
showing that the latter received the letter. Mr.
Major makes oath also that for many years
have been acquainted with the signature of said
Butler; that have seen him write it hundreds
of times; that there is a great lack OF uniform
ity in his signatures; that have never seen any
two of them alike: still they all have certain
marked characteristics. rendering them easily
| identified by me or by any other person well
acquainted wi his signature. A comparison
| of the copy of his alleged signature on exhibit
with the copy OF his genuine signature on
exhibit d, by placing the one on thin translu-
cent paper over the other, leaves no room for
doubt that the former traced from the
latter"
OTHER AFFTDAvITs.
An affidavit or Geo. W. Dunn of Bell Bros. to the
effect that he made photo. photographic copies of
Gen. Buffers signature on papers brought to
him on August last by Mr.. Strong, as set forth
in the motion, is also attached to the paper
filed in court, and also certified copies of ex-
tracts from the proceedings before the exam
liner on the Sd and 9Th instants aud again on the
9Th instant, to show that Mr.. Barrett had called
for the production Of the letter and that it had
not been produced.
Mr.. sTRoSGs ANSWER.
When Mr.. Barrett presented his motion call
ing for the letter to Judge Cox in the Equity
Court this morning MIR. Cook. counsel for Mr..
Strong. said that the time for taking testimony
had expired and the plaintiff had not awaited
himself Of the privilege accorded him under
that order. Mr.. Cook then read the answer of
Mr.. Strong to Mr.. BaIretts motion. This
answer maintained that the motion was not
justified. such letter, if 1t existed, could be
produced by the issuing of subpoena duces
tecum, provided by statute or the rules or the
court neither of which methods, the answer
stated, had been pursued by the plaintiff; that
the mere statement that the plaintiff is advised
hv counsel that he neads no oriuinal latte. ~.