St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-11-06
THE CAMERA LUCIDA.
One Produced in the COLON
Case by an Expert From
Washington.
The State Objects to the Work
Of the New and Strange
Machine.
But It Is Admitted, and the
Weary Grind Is Still Co
ing On.
Judge Hooker Goes Out Of
Court to Consult His
Brother Judges.

again seated himself in the witness
box and resumed his testimony. Judge
Shaw handed him the questioned sigma
ture, ana also Exhibit No. 10, and asked
him to show the jury the points in each
which were common to both. lie did
this by placing Exhibit 10 OH the Win
dow near his chair, with the questioned
signature on top of it, and proceeded to
point out to the jury the peculiarities in
each which were preSentin the other. lie
declared that the microscope absolutely
failed TO show any indications OF tracing
in the signature in dispute, and
that it could not have been so written.
He lectured the jury at great length on
the points of resemblance in the two
signatures in a technical manner. which
would not be ineligible to the reader
without innumerable diagrams. The
witness took the word committed as
it was written by the StenograDher, cut
it in two pieces iongitudinally, and
used it to show his method of explain
ing curves and hair lines.
The state made some objection to the
introduction of writing not in the case.
but Judge Hooker ruled that it was no
more Objectionable than explanations
on the blackboard. The witness con-
tinued, and held that the two pieces OF
the same writing. if considered Sepa-
rately, would show what was appar-
emily different characteristics IN
the writing which did not ac-
tually exist. The witness also
exhibited to the jury letters cut from
various signatures of MIR. Blalsdell
and pasted on cardboard to show that
discrepancies existed in the writing.
"a Ill III int no
to demonstrate that minor differences in
different specimens of handwriting of
the same person can and do occur, and
that hence such differences as had been
pointed between the signature in dis
pute and those admitted to be genuine,
were not conclusive indications that one
was forged. He admitted that the diff
ferenceS in the signatures were in some
respects quite wide, but said that he
was fully convinced that Mr.. Blais-
dell wrote his name on the back
of Exhibit A. This concluded Mr..
SOuthWOrth'S direct testimony. and Mr..
Wellington subjected him to cross
examination. He gave as reason why
he thought that the disputed sigma ture
was not traced that there were noevi-
denceS of hesitation nor StoppageG OF the
pen.
.'Then.'' said Mr.. Wellington. ''you
do not agree with Mr.. Carvalho when
he said that the pen did stop in making
that signature?"
mo: | would not like to say that
without further examination" replied
Mr.. SOuthWorth.
Being ques toned farther on the sub
ject of tracing. he adheredt to his former
statement that the disputed signature
could not have been so made. After
another unimpOrtant question or two by
Judge Shaw, the witness retired.
r. u. Piper was the next witness
called by the defense, but before he
was sworn Judge Shaw said that he
wished to produce some authorities
upon the still undecided question as to
whether specimens of Collom'S penman-
ship could be produced and examined in
order to show that certain natural
characteristics which were said by the
state experts to exist, and manifest
themselves on the questioned signature
were not discernible in Collom's pen
manship; but as it was now l o'clock,
the court adjourned.
In the afternoon Judge Shaw took the
floor. and commenced an argument in
favor of the admission of this testimony,
and quoted largely from the Hill-Sharon
case in California, in order to show that
his position was well taken.
The state reiterated its claim that
the proposed testimony was incOmpe
tent. as it was not incumbent upon it
to prove that COLON committed the
forgery with his own hand. that he
might have directed it to be done and
still be guilty as the principal. Judge
KOon read an extract from County At
tOrney JamiSOn's opening in which he
distinctly charged that the forgery was
committed by j. Frank COLON in per-
son. This brought Mr.. Wellington to
his feet with the declaration that the
state claimed and proposed to prove that
the forgery was committed by the de-
PENDANT with his own hand. Mr.. Brooks
followed with an argument in reply to
that of the state, and at its conclusion
Judge Hooker said that he would
like to consult Judges LOchren and
Young on the subject, and taking
the authorities in his hands, he went in
search of those functiOuarieS. After
an absence of some fifteen minutes he
returned and made the announcement
that both Judge Lochren and Judge
Young fully cOncurred with him in the
opinion that the testimony was mad
Missile. The defense thereupOn took
| an exception, and Mr.. Piper was sworn.
Mr.. Piper said that he lives in Wash
ington, and is an expert; that he had
been sworn in number of cases as to
questioned writing, mentioning the
Hill-SharOn case, the YanktOn scrip
frauds, the case of the State of Kansas
against State Treasurer Crawford. in
yOIving the question of forged school
land certificates, and other cases, cover
ing a period of ten or fifteen years. The
state did not question his claim to being
an expert. and the witness proceeded.
He said that the signatures in this case
which he had examined in Washington
were submitted to him by Mr.. Wilson
and Mr.. ROckwood; that he was three
DAYS in coming to a conclusion, and
that he did not have shadow of
doubt that the signature of MIR. Blais-
dell on the back of Exhibit A was writ
| ten by the same person who wrote Mr..
Blaisdell's admitted genuine signatures
| in the case. Being asked how he had
reached this conclusion, he said it was
bv the use of the camera lucida, by
| which, it appears, the reflection of the
subject to be examined Is thrown
| through prism onto a sheet of paper
and its outlines traced with pen Or
brush and after wards filled in. The
state objected to the use OF drawings
that their accuracy and resem-
blance to the originals depended
largely upon the skill of the operator,
which was not the case with photo
graph. Mr.. Piper set bis camera lucida
up and explained the method of the OPP
Grafton, claiming that it had been adj
mitted in great many courts. and that
| in the Hill-Sharon case he had demon
| strated its approximate mathematical
| eXactness. He admitted that it was not
exactly correct in its operation, but was
| as nearly so as camera Obscura by
which photographs are made. This led
Judge Hooker to remark that if he had
| supposed, in the commencement of the
| case, the jury or anybody else in the
case would regard photographs as exact
| representations of the originals he
would have ruled them all out. Both
| sides disdained entertaining any such
opinion, and Mr.. Piper's drawings were
| admitted on the same basis as photo