St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-11-01

not a scientific expert in penmanship
and had posted himself only in the con-
duet of his daily business.
The defense then objected to his be-
ing sworn as an expert, and lengthy
argument enSued, but Judge Hooker
Oyerruled the objection and the witness
proceeded.
Exhibits A to A 81, Ii, T., ID, Il, # and
disputed signature, and asked If, in his
opinion, the signatures of Mr.. Blais-
delPs name upon all of them were writ
ten by the same person.
In reply he said: mo, sir. do not.
think the signature Oh exhibit A was
written by different person from the
one who wrote the Others"
Mr.. Wilson then took the witness in
hand and asked:
"Mr. Seymour, what are your reasons
for thinking that the signature on eX-
hibit A was written by Il different per-
son from the one who wrote the others"
al think so from first sight; from look
ing at them"
swell. we have had the spasm.
waver, rotating and bioplasm theories,
and now you add that of inspiration, do
yOu?"
signatures show character and all have
heavy down strokes. The disputed sig
nature is entirely different in these re-
spects."
What do you mean by the word
character as applied to SignatureY'
"Well, it looks as if the writer set out
to do something in earnest, thing
which he knew how to do and had
right to do"
Point out some of the differences be-
tween the signature on exhibit A and
those on the other exhibits which have
been shown you"
The witness proceeded to do so, toll
lowing mainly the track of the other ex-
pertS, but said that he was not cOmpe-
tent to lecture upon the subject. When
he had concluded he was shown other
admitted genuine signatures of Mr..
BlalSdell, and asked if he could not find
the same characteristics i'll them. He
admitted that in some of them
there was more Of q resemblance to
the disputed signature in respect to
some peculiarities, but claimed, on the
whole, that they did not resemble 1t.
He said that he could tell the disputed
signature from the others as far as he
could see 1t, even if he had not been
told that it was not genuine.
One of Mr.. Blaisdell's signatures, he
thought. Indicated that he must have
been cold, nervous OF intoxicated when
he wrote it, and many of them he pro-
nounced TO be very bad, while his sigma
ture in general was not well written,
but still had great deal of character
in it.
This concluded the testimony of the
witness, and the state called E. I'll.
Inn lief him
offered in evidence the list of liabilities,
filed Sept. 10 by j. Frank COLON, or
that portion of it which included the
list of III notes.
To this the defense objected. and Mr..
Wellington stated briefly the reason
why it was offered, which, he stated,
consisted in the fact that it agreed with
the list given Davis & Farnham on Aug,
6, at the time of the alleged eonfessiont
and tended TO establish the truth OF tina.
confession.
Mr.. Wilson replied in short argu-
ment, cOntending that to admit it
would be to let collateral and
outside issues into the ease.
Mr.. Brooks then took the floor and
argued that it was competent and ma
terial for several reasons. Because 1T
went to prove that the alleged confess
the note in dispute. Because it did not
state, as it should, that Mr.. Blaisdell
was an indOrser on any Of the notes.
which was all admission of Mr.. COLON
on oath that the Endorsements of Mr..
Blaisdell were forgeries. Mr.. Wilson
repl ed at length, maintaining his
former position, and asserting that the
law did not require that in the case Of
filing a schedule OF liabilities in an as
signment the names of the ihdOrsers on
notes, if there were any such should be
stated. As it was now 5 o'clock, Judge
Hooker took the case under advisement,
and adjourned conrt until 10 o'clock
this morning.