The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-03-14

lion On the Truth Of NY opinion II this case:
81: :sae n :: s lss sssi se IS 6 .esPs
through
Then she was put on the rack about the
notorious 800 check. her own SETTLE
ment - She identified the book from
torn. She said she could not show the
jury where she tore the check ont. because
she tore ont two checks. She admitted
that she had testified the previous day
that she put the check and piece Of the
stub behind a tintype and never took them
ont until two days before she cashcd the
check. She then, at Mr.. G IRIS request,
fitted the two checks, the alleged forgery
and the blank one torn out with II, TO the
stubs remaining in the book, being warned
by Mr.. Carr not TO crumple the check or
TO tear Oft part Of the stub, as she APP
peared about to do. Continuing. she said
she took the tintype along wherever she
Monday evening after Mr.. Carr had gone.
She said that, standing at rhe kitchen-tablc, .
pile Of bowls underneath Il 50 that he could not
get close to 1t. and the check rested on q book,
elaborate explanation OF the Ahaky signature
having been bnilt up fact. or alleged fact. at
time. She explained the other peculiarities Of
writing In the check in the usual form before
she sat down, read IL and laid down the pen.
Then, she says, she filed in the words: ssix
u
finer and thinner pen. because the irst was
''ruHring thick" These words. however, are
written In an apparently different hand from
When asked about the use Of two pens, she
sad: ~ am sure there were two pens there,
because brought ont two penn" but when Mr..
two pens nom the rack. she she replied: no, I'm
not quite sure, but think So
Then note was produced. written on
one of Mr.. Cranes blanks. before the maxi
ing of the check. but bearing no date. It
reads as follows:
uord Of honor for the rent Of yonr Offices during
my occupation Of Colman's premises The price
is ID dolls nonth-term, NOUNS. need
the money soon; as Powell has paid, suppose
you have plenty. Iuoat it tonight.
MIS- DEARBORN.
This made her think deeply for some
minutes, leaning her head on her hand,
and evidently her thoughts were not pleas
ant. Then she said, bringing out each
short sentence with jerk:
.nar have AZ seen seen the the psper wrote H. don't
This closed her cross-examination, and
court adjourned for lunch. On the re-as-
sembling of court, r. X. Strive, receiving
teller Of the Boston National bank, was
called as an expert on signatures by Mr..
Blaine, and number of checks were of
fered by the plaintiff az genuine signatures
the checks introduced for comparison must
have been made within a certain time, say
year, of the writing of the check in ques-
ton.
Mr.. Blaine asked questions as TO the
general rules on which Mr.. Struve Judges
of signatures, but Mr.. Carr objected, hold
ing that the questions must bear directIy
on the check in dispute. The question
was argued at length, and finally
decided against the defense. Before mis-
evidence as an expert was admitted Mr.
Carr examined Mr.. Strive as to his educa-
ton, qualifications and experience in
studying handwritings. He then objected
to the admission OF Mr.. Strives testimony
as an expert. Mr.. Blaine endeayored to
uphold the competence of his witnesses,
but the court ruled out his testimony as
an expert, and he was discharged.
w. IL. Schaffner testified that he was a
banker, about six months here and tfir-
teen months in New York city. He had
seen Cranes signature once, about four
months ago. and thought he could recog-
nize 1t again. He thought the signature
in dispute was that Of Mr.. Crane His at
tention was called by Mr.. Carr to a num-
Der of points of difference between ac-
knowledged signatures and the disputed
signature of Mr.. Crane, and he was
obliged to admit some points made by Mr..
Carr. Frequent disputes as TO the adj
instability of evidence occurred. but GEN
orally Mr.. Cranes attorneys had the best
Oft.
Several photographers who had made
enlarged photographs Of the disputed
checks were examined as to the manner of
making. them. The photographs were
then objected to by Colonel Haines on the
ground that they were not fairly made,
and the signatures to be photographed
were not impartialiy selected.
Judge Osborn was disposed to sustain
the objection and the question will be ar
the photographs are admissible.
The day will be largely taken up with
expert testimony for the plaintiff. The
defense will then present the rest of its
evidence, probably consuming the rest of
the day. The trial will probably occupy
the greater part of Monday