The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-03-18

simiiarities he had pointed out combined
in any one genuine check. He found
seven dissimilarities in the disputed sigma
ture and pointed them out. He showed
how he believed the IA was formed in
the genuine and disputed signatures. The
disputed signature appeared to have been
written slowly and laboriously.
In reply TO Colonel Haines he said he
had found dissi,niiarities in many genuine
signatures. Several signatures submitted
he pronounced average signatures OF Mr.
Crane. In one he found two dissimilari-
ties, but Colonel Haines found other diff
ferences, which he admitted. He then
pronounced it not fair, average sigma
ture and proceeded 20 search out one
which he considered such. Then Colonel
Haincs began 10 anaiyze his seiec-
ton, picked out differences and gained
concessions on several small points.
He was then asked to compare the dis
puted signature with the writing in the
rctraction, which Mrs. Dearborn testified
that Mr.. Crane had written. Colonel Carr
and Mr. Preston objected that they had
not admitted this to be Mr. Cranes hand
writing, ard the question was ruled out
He had seen signatures written by ner-
vous persons, but they were not always
tremulous. Some old persons wrote in
tremuIous hand. but on the other hand
some did not. The irregularitv of the
disputed signature might be accounted for
by excitement. He could make signature
as much like that of Crane as the disputed
signature. and had done it, but never tried
to get money ON it at the bank. He was
asked to make the experiment, but the
question was ruled out.
John 4. Whalley, treasurer of the Posi-
IsTELLIGENcER, had known Mr.. Crane for
six or seven years knew his signature;
had received checks from him nearly every
month for four years, and had seen him
write his name. He said the disputed sig
nature was not Cranes, though it bore
some resemblance. He was interrupted by
Mr.. Carr when saying: sBut / don't
know that" He was asked by Haines
to finish this sentence, and added, "but
that it is Cranes He had belonged to
the same church as Crane for six or seven
years, but had not been intimately associ-
ated with him. He had been to camping
party which Crane visited. He had found
Crane courageous, not frightened anyhow,
even when Mr.. Whalley presented bill.
He gave il only as his opinion that Crane
did not write the signature, but might be
mistaken.
w. A. Dickey, manager of bank at
Montesano for year past, had worked in
Seattle two years previously with n. Chill
berg Il Son, and was in partnership
with Crane for year and a
half, up to October, 1885, During
that time he acquired knowledge
of Mr.. Cranes writing, saw him write his
Il. a Al
disputed check he said he did not think
the signature Cranes and did not think he
would write like that. He did not belong
to the same church as Crane, never be-
longed to any chuRh, and was only ac-
qnainted with him in business way He
did not go camping with him. He came
here on Tuesday to testify without sub
pGna, intending to do all he could to help
Crane out; he corrected himself and said
he came to tell what he knew about the
case. Haines repeated the question:
Are you now doing the best you can to
help him out?" Mr.. Dickey fenced with
the question. and finally was ordered by
the judge TO answer directly, and said:
Eyes;
John Wallace, an empioye of Crane q
little over 3 year, testified that he was in
Cranes employ on April 81, 1890. when
Cranes Office was at Second and Marion
streets. On that evening Crane was in the
Office from 80 to $50. went out for sup
per and returned in half an hour. The
witness was working on some books. He
is acquainted with Erastus Dearborn's
wife. He first saw her about a week be-
fore April 81 1870. when she came into the
Office. six or eight men being there.
Then occurred a long dispute between
counsel as to whether Wallace's testimony
in regard to what Mrs. Dearborn said on
that occasion was admissible. 1t arose on
Colonel Carr's asking: Ibid Mrs Dear
born say anything on coming in?'
Colonel Haines Immediately objected. on
the ground that, as Mrs. Dearborn was not
party to the suit, anything said or done
by her was not admissible unless it had
direct bearing on the case. This evidence
had not been brought out in the cross-ex-
animation Of Mrs. Dearborn. and therefore
this witness could not testify to impeach
her testimony.
Mr.. Preston expressed surprise at
Colonel Haines' idea of the law. The
question was whether or not certain
writing was made by q cert ain person.
Defendant was permitted TO allow Mrs.
Dearborn to relate day-after-day converse
tons which had taken place between her
self and Crane, some OF them as much as
three years back. 1t was a poor rule
which did not work both WAYS. They did
not propose to introduce this evidence to
impeach Mrs. Dearborn's, but to prove the
circumstances leading up to the making of
the disputed check. These statements by
Mrs. Dearborn, which they wished to
bring out, amounted 10 threats and they
were material, as Mrs. Dearborn claimed
To have seen Crane make this writing and
to have uttered it.
Judge Osborn ruled that questions put
by Mrs. Dearborn To Dexter Horton & Co.
were material, but what related to Mrs.
Dearborn and Mr.. Crane was not admis-
sible.
Colonel Carr stated that they proposed
to show that Mrs. Dearborn made certain
threats, which eliminated in the writing
of this check.
Mr.. Preston continued to argue the
point energetically, insisting that if it is
material to show motives for Crane TO have
written the check, it is material to show
that threats were made which ended in
the woman making, or procuring some
body TO make, forged check.
| Colonel Haines still insisted that no tes-
| timony of this character could be admitted
unless as impeaching testimony He
claimed that the opposing counsel could
asked Mrs. Dearborn on cross-examina-
| ton whether she made these threats, and
| if they had done so could have then intro