The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-03-15
A LAWYERS BATTLE.
The Day Mostly Devoted to
Argument in Cranes Case.
PHOTOGRAPHS NOT ADMITTED.
Enlarged Pictures Of the Disputed Docu-
ment Barred Out-Expert Testf-
mony Heard.

But little progress was made in Judge osborn's
court yesterday in the taking of testimony in the
suit Of George W. Crane against Dexter Horton
4 Co. A great part of the day was consumed in
arguments among the attorneys, aud only two
witnesses were examined, both being experts on
signatures. The plaintiff received q serious blow
in the ruling out - evidence Of enlarged photo
graphs and negatives Of the disputed and gcnu-
inc signatures Of Mr.. Crane This ruling was
only made after exhaustive arguments on the
adnissibiiity OF photographs Is evidence, which
consumed the whole morning In the afternoon,
however, the defense was cousoled by several
rulings in its favor, one of which shut out
the mortgage By Mr.. Crane to the bank OF his
newly purchased logging camp aud another
placed Limitations on the manner OF examining
experts.
On the meeting Of court Colonel J. c. Hainss,
for the defense, made long argument against
the admission OF the enlarged photographs OF
the disputed check. He quoted authorities
against them on the ground that the enlarge
ments were not exact copies of the original, ~
there were numerous opportunities offered for
them to become distorted and there were too
many steps in the process from the original TO
the production OF the first photograph ard affeT-
wards of the enlargement. The photographs
were admitted to have been made with cheap
materials and what was the use OF copies made
by a score of media subject TO error when they
had the original
Colonel F. NJ Carr contended for the plaintiff
that the court had admitted evidence going
back four years III the lives OF the parties, and
admitted parts of conversation which would
throw the leaat light on the question whether
George W. Crane signed that paper. II should
admit these photographs. He argued at length
for the admission of photographs, stating that
Colonel Haincs quoted authorities from those
states which follow the English law, and this
state had stepped out OF teranks of those states.
dx<s% mir
paid tribute to Colonel Haines as every Sue
cessiul amateur photographer" ard declared
that there were certain approved methods in
use, III making engagements. which the wit
nesscs testified TO having used on this occasion.
He contcnded for these engagements that they
showed every curve in the genuine signature to
be perfect. while in the disputed signature they
showed the line to be sawtooth-edged, ragged,
trembling and irregular, and tina. the ciileren.
parts OF the letters failed to connect
Harold Preston made an argument for the ad-
mission OF the photographs. He stated that the
genuine and disputed signature were photo
grarhed together, side BY side. One photograph
was not made OF the one signature and another
OF the other signature; il ii had been so, there
might have been ground OF objection.
Colonel Haires replied to the array OF authori-
tics presented by the other side that they all APP
piled to the wet plate process. but not to the
bromide process, which was used in this case.
He asked why soine other admittedly genuine
signature hal ms been photographs, and he
picked ont on resembling the disputed sig
nature. Coloa-l promptly denied its adj
instability ami IL abandoned. Colonel
Haines picked cut other signatures. which Colo
mel Carr admitted to be genuine and had many
Of the same peculiarities as the disputed sigma
ture.
Judge Osborn gave a lengthy rsling on the
point lie said that. ii only one genuine sigma
ture had been offered, the photograph of that
and the disputed signature might have been adj
tilted. But they had at least 30 admittedly
genuine checks for comparison, the signatures
to which had been made under various condi-
lions and at different times OF day. As against
the admitted genuineness OF 200 or 800 checks
they had photographs of one check selected at
random for comparison with the disputed one
II all the genuine signatures he'd gone through
fair test. For himself he would
prefer to have 200 checks to
examine rather than the enlargement OF one.
But they had copy OF copy presented They
would be using secondary evidence, when they
had abundance OF primary evidence. The photo
graphs, negatives and enlargcments were there
structed that any occasional giimpses they may
have caught of the photographs were not testi-
mony.
Colonel Carr took exception TO the ruling and
particularly to the instructions, and asked that
the photographs and negatives be filed in court.
tie complained that on Friday the court had
harshiy spoken to counsel in regard to their
showing the photographs to other persons and
had implied some evil intention.
The court denied any such intention, saying
that one OF counsel Colonel Carr standing
within two feet OF the jury, had been showing
one OF the photographs TO bystander and talk
Ing about it 10 him in such tone that he him
SELF could hear some of the remarks. He was
satisfied that no harm Intended, but harm
might have resulted, and be had thought it his
duty to guard against such danger.
Alter the noon adjournment w. NJ Schaffner.
who claims thirteen years experience as a
banker IN New York city ana not thirteen
months, as was stated in the PosT-ISTEILI-
6ESeEE yesterday by typographical error,
again put on the stand by the defense. he was
asked by ME. Blaine TO show the jury wherein
the contested signature agreed with the genuine
siguature of Crane. Mr.. schatfner explained
the points in which the writings were similar,
saying that no two of the signatures were
exactly alike, bat writing IN a great
hurry was Liable 70 write differently ST different
simes and nn9er different conditions. The
general similarity OF tae writing proved
It's gsnuineness. Cross-exaTained by Coi-
onei Carr as TO the difference in
signature from the same letters In admitted
signatures, he admitted several points OF diff
ference. lie admitted taking an interest il the
case and having consulted with counsel III
regard to Il. bEt denied any interest in estab-
fishing the fact that ;Ec genuine and disputed
signatures were written by the same hand. His
attention WAS called 10 one letter after another
in the disputed signature and he admitted
several points OF difference from the genuine
signatures aud pceulfa-ities in the disputed
signature which seemed 10 indicate forgery He
said that the very tact that signature does not
always conform TO a certain slow signature. but
]. r. Jackson paying teller Of the Boston Ma
fionai bank, testinsd that he had several years
experience In seyeraI capacities in banks in Sc
attic aiid Boston. He had been peying teller for
year aad q half at the Boston National. and
had occasionally had trouble about cheeks. lie
had seen photograph OF the contested check.
lie was asked u state his opinion 10 the
regularity or irregularity OF the genuine sigma
tGres. but the question was ruled out ON ex-
sniniug the disputed cheek aud comparing il
with the genuine ones. he said he should think
the disputed signature was the genuine
opinion on its general resemblance to the other
signatures. on the similarity OF the a and
s-N,' and on the punctuation marks. he no.
ticed considerable difference iii the spacing DC
tween letters III ali the checks. The letter 'sG''
showed the same characteristics in style.
Objection was raised By Mr.. Preston 10 a COM
parisan OF genuine cheeks with one another, but
was everrUled; also 10 having the attention OF
the jury called TO the appearance OF various sig
natures, To see peculiaritiss testified to by the
witness. The court ruled that the witness
might testify 10 pecuiiaritics oi handwriting
saa the jury were 10 determine how IL looked TO
them.
The defense here offered in evidence mort
Cages b. Crane TO y. IL. L2tigler on the logging
camp and real estate III Seattle which Dearborn
sold 70 Crane. made on April 81 They desired
- oder them now in order that the signatures
later to prove the transactions in regard 20 those
properties. These were mortgages to Dexter
Norton & Co. as security ior oyerirafts.
Mr. Preston objected that the signatures had
not been admitted, aud that the documents had
nothing to do with the case
Colonel Haines contended that they had n
right to present evidence of transactions be-
tween Crane and the bank This eksftei mort
gage was forced npol the bank. which they put
In the safe, never recorded. and never Gsed, it