The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-05-19
BLYTHE'S MONEY.
Filing of the Statement on Motion
for New Trial.
New Evidence Gathered From Critical Ex-
animation Of the Elliot Documents.
The Family Bible.


this morning file their statement on motion
for a new trial. 1t will be a complete re-
view OF the evidence as presented at the
trial, together with a specification Of errors
relied upon to set aside the decision Be
sides this it viii contain certain newly dis
covered eyldeace as a basis for an attack
upon their opponents, in which the writings
produced by them are claimed 10 have been
forgeries.
1t viii be remembered that Judge Coffey
decided that Blythe was a Welshman, born
in Mold, Wales, and that his true name was
Thomas Williams. This was proven by
certain documents signed Williams" which
they claimed to be in the handwriting OF
Blythe, written from Paris and London to
members of the Williams family.
In order TO show that the handwriting in
these letters was that of Blythe, il became
necessary 10 prove his handwriting at tho
trial, and when this was attempted the sus-
picion Of the opposing parties was at once
directed to the letters in question.
During the trial, in apparent good faith,
the attorneys for the Williams claimants
brought into court a series of twenty-five
letters and envelopes. which purported to
have been written by Blythe in London to
d r. 5. +. Elliot in San Francisco. These
letters, IL seems, were received without sus-
picion, they appearing to be of a friendly
character, totally uDcOnneeted with tie
case, and, 10 all appearances, serving only
10 show specimen of Biythe's handwIit-
ing.
UNEXPECTED RESULT.
The result was, however that the Elliot
letters were used as eXemplars, from which
other pTOtestautS sought 10 prove the VIII
Jams documents 10 be forgeries, but the
similarity between the Elliot letters aud the
Williams letters was so striking that Judge
Coffey decided hat Blythe was Williams.
Seen after the trial, the gypsy claimants
caused the Elliot documents to be critically
examined, which examination resulted in
the discovery that they were l0TgeTltS, also
That the original letters were pat into the
hands Of the same parties who wrote the
Williams letters, and copied upon selected
paper with selected inks. The original Ell
iotletters were concealed or destroyed. ana
the copies thus produced, purp0Tting to be
originals, were put into the original envel-
Opes and produced at the trial a. being the
bona ice correspondence OF Mr. Blythe to
his friends.
These letters having been copied bv the
same person who wrote the Williams letters
on which the Williams case rested. were
thus IN tie same hand writing making it
appear that Blythe was Williams, because
tie letters signed Williams were in the
andwriting of Blythe as shown by the
Elliot letters, and solely upon this similarity
The court rendered a decision as recorded
above.
PROOF OF THE FORGERY.
In an examination of the Elliot letters to
test their genuineHess as eXemplars to
prove the handwriting OF Blythe, it was
found that the letters could not have been
written by the writer Of the envelopes The
words san Francisco" which are found
upon all Of the envelopes was enlarged
under the microscope. and copied in fac
smile upon cardboard tablet Directly
under this was the same word copied in a
like manner from the letter. By this
method the contract in the writing is plainly
shown, and when repeated some thirty odd
times upon different letters and envelopes
in the collection, shows to a demonstration
that the letters were written by one person
and the envelopes by another.
The envelopes being the admitted hand
writing Of Blythe, the letters, according to
the late examination, must be false. If so,
then all the writings upon which the Will
Jams case rests are also false.
Another method by which the Blythe peo-
pie claim to be able TO prove the Elliot let
teTs fOTgeTieS is by a chemical analysis of
the ink used upon both letters aud enYel-
Opes. Ii is said that this ANALYSIS has de-
yel0ped the fact that the ink used upon GER
tain OF the letters is different in compost
ton from that used IN addressing the envel-
" a
single case, yet when this difference runs
through a series Of letters, ii is claimed by
the Blythe people to bea sgnificant circum-
stance and conclusive proof that the letters
and envelopes could not have been written
by the same person.
THE FAMILY RECORD.
Another point which the statement for
motion for new trial considers at length is
the family Bible record. This is produced
by the Williams claimants and purports to
show a record Of the births OF members of
the Williams family, all in the handwriting
OF the father, John Williams, and ali
written nearly seventy years ago, as testi-
hed to by Sarah Roberts, an alleged sister
Of Williams.
If this record was made seventy years
ago 1t must have been done with a quill, as
that was before the age Of steel pens. The
Blythe folks here again discover an incon-
slsteney, claiming their ability to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that the manu-
script " as all written with steel pen, as
evidenced by the heavy scoring upun the
paper, made by the downward impression
Of the pen. Further than this the entire
record, the entries Of which cover period
from 1913 20 lo22, bear proof of having been
written by more than one person, in CON
tTadlct0n Of evidence produced by the
other side to prove the reverse