The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1891-10-24

the signatures Of very few men were awavs
alike and that even his own was not always
! the same.
Mr.. JOPLIN.
| Mr. J. G. joplin. teller Of the First National
Rank WAS called as the next witness. He
has been connected with banks for more than
twenty wears He had frequently compared
| signatures but dlsclaimed to be an expert.
| He had known Mr.. Wallace ever since the
latter had been in the banking business. He
himself had been teller in the bank for at
| least twenty years
Some legal discu sion then arose as 10 the
quai6cat ons of an expert. counsel for the
defense taking the ground that witness was
not m expert according 10 MS own statement.
The testimony WAS finally admitted by the
/ Court. The several notes IN evidence were
| then shown 10 witness who. after some de-
| liberation stated that the formation OF the
letters in tho several signatures were alike,
but that there was certain dlssrnllarity
| which he could hardly explain. He was not
/ familiar with Mr. Ludwig handwriting. but
he could say that man might write diner-
| emily NJ different times often the pen used
| also created difference In the appearance OF
a signature. The signature IN the = 1oO note
! looked very much like that III tho - 800 note.
! but even between the two was difference.
4 he characteristic in the handwriting which
|
! notes could not be noticed IN that o. the
81 $50 note. but this might have been caused
/ By the surrounding circumstances.
When cross.e1amined by Captain Wise wit
ness stated that he might have passed forged
! checks thinking them 10 be forged, and be
knew that on some occasions he had thrown
out checks. the signatures of which he
| thought to be forged and which Afterwards
! appeared 10 be genuine.
t When asked by the Court whether in his
/ opinion the signature on the II: $50 was made
/ 10y tho same person rs those on the other notes
witness said that he could not answer the
question either way.
When asked by one Of the iurymen witness
! admitted that he would have discounted the
| $3.50 note if 1t had been presented TO him by
@ reputable person.
Mr.. BoUDAn.
Mr.. H. b. Boudar was next called to the
/ stand. He told the Jury that he was Il book.
keeper and accountant. and rs such had
| thlrty-six years experience. lie did not clam
| 10 possess peculiar talent but be had ac-
! CURED "A certain amount OF knowledge as 10
! signatures ty his long experience. When the
/ several notes and letters were handed hi!n to
/ examine them as to the nature or j. A. I'D
! Wigs signatures he stated tlat their dlsslml-
/ lsrity struck him very forcibly. lie noticed
/ the same in tie formation OF the different let
] ters but he admitted that all the papers, IN
/ his opinion. could have been signed by the
[ same person.
On his cross-e1amination witness stated
! that COmmOnwealth's Attorney Smith had
/ called on him last Saturday. and had shown
/ him four notes and one check. but he did not
! remember what notes they were lie was not
familiar with Mr. Ludwig handwriting and
had never before seen any of his signatures
except when he was shown them IN the police
/ court The slgu ature IN the receipt for the
S34 had the appearance OF being genuine. In
the signature OF the $500 draft the formation
! Of the letters was very different. and he did
not like 10 state whether, in his opinion. Mr..
Ludwig wrote the same or not. He would
not accept 10 "a his signature, and yet lie
would not like 10 pronounce 1t forgery.
The signature had been admitted by AF.
Ludwig o. be genuine.
The prosecution then rested their case, and
recess was taken until clock IN the after
noon.
THE AFTERNOON SESSION.
Long before the courtroom was thrown open
tOr the afternoon ses,iona big crowd thrOnged
in the hallway aud Il was impossible Tor
those who had any BUSINESS IN the City Hall
TO pass through As soon as the doors were
opened terrific Jam ensued anti IN lew sec
onds all available space was Occupied.
Mr. James ID. Crag. deputy Treasurer Of
the city of Richmond. was the flrst witness
called by the defense. lie stated that he
was familiar with handwriting and was con-
petent 30 give an opinion as 10 the genuine
ness of signatures He was shown the Lud-
wig notes which were admitted to be genuine
and also a number OF letters which WAS signed
by Mr. Ludwig. a. he admitted when on the
stand. lie compared with them the 81 $50 note
and stated that m his opinion they had all
been written by tine same party.
On crOss-oKam nation by MIR. Smith witness
stated that he WAS u teller OF bank twenty
seven wears ago and since then general and
nd vffl hp ar nd
in banks His present duties As deputy City
Treasurer required him e. look over signatures
T. checks. etc When the checks came 10
him they had been received by some one else,
but they might be rejected afterwards 10y
him as forged. Whether such A case bad
ever happened. he did not recall at this time.
Counter checks were passed by the ieiiers in
the banks, while exchange checks went
directly TO the boOkkeeper. II WAS the duty
of the b0Okkeeper IN the Planters Bank 10
compare the gnatures on checks and notes
with the standard signature on the look OF
the bank. a duty which sh' uld be performed
by tho bOOkkeeper OF every bank.
TO COMPARE THE SIGNATURES.
Witness was shown the several genuine
notes 20 compare the signatures. he stated
that there was q variation in the signatures:
that the general chara to istics were smooth
and frm but irregular. oweyer he could
not discover any nervousness in them. The
sane opinion he gave IN regard to the sigma
ture of the $50 note. lie had never hear
that man would write bis name in the body
OF IA letter tierent from his signature at the
bottom He acknowledged the difference IN
the signature Of the sl.Z note as pointed
out Nv Mr. Smith on previous occasions and
said that while there was an absence of con-
tnuity IN that respect in the signature yet
II was his firm belief that the note vas signed
by the same person as the other notes.
81.
sigma ures made by Mr.. Ludwig IN court on
the previous day at the request OF Juror
Hughes. and he pointed out IN the second
signature the same peculiarltes which had
been discovered IN the signature of the ~, $50
note.
Mr.. Bernard Peyton. Jr.. cashier of the
Merchants and Planters Savings Bank, who
on the previous DAY had been called by the
prosecution. was then put on the stand by
counsel for the defense. Notwithstanding the
obier ton raised toy Mr. Smith, his testl-
mony was admitted by the court
Witness was shown the different notes. the
genuine ones as well rs those which are
alleged to be forged and he stated that in his
opinion they were all written by the same
hand
When asked by Juror Hoofnagle witness
stated that he had discounted Mr. Da hielps
individual note for : 30. for which he had
given him two of Mr.. Iudwlg's notes for
81 $50 and $500. respectively as eollaterais.
The note Of Mr. Dashiell had not yet beer
paid. for the reason that no demand had as
yet been made tor the same
Milan croeo evor,fue1 ftv Mr. Smith vritneas