New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-01-25

naming William c. Dewitt correspondent. was
about to be begun. Chaunccy Truax one OF the
counsel for Mr. Langley, said when asked II the
papers were drawn up that he could not answer
any questions about the matter. W. J. Gaynor de-
MED that he attorney In any such case.
The prosecution I'm the Of Langley agt Lang
ley was concluded yesterday afternoon and the cas-;
for the defence was begun. to b. continued to-day
Much Of tho time OF the court WAS taken up by the
evidence Of experts In handwriting for both sides, who
directly contradicted each Others conclusions
The proceedings opened with the continuance OF
the examination OF Margaret O'trady chamber
maid the United states Hotel In Fultonst.. New
York. who had testified TO seeing man with red
face. whom she nftcrward recognized Mr. Langley,
with woman at the hotel. The two things which
made her remember him were his rcd face and his
size. She went 10 lrvlngton TO SEQ Mrs. Langley on
Christmas. at the invitation Of Miss Shepard. sister
Of Mrs. Langley. She refused to talk about the case
TO the proprietor Of the United States Hotel.
Arthur Wells. the hall hoy. was recalled and ques-
toned by the defence regard 10 his playing billiards
with Mr.. Root, OF the counsel for the prosecution.
and asked II he ever got any money from any
one He answered that Mr. Herdling proprietor OF
the hotel, gave him go, which caused Mr.. Root TO
laugh. and John +. Parsons, who was questioning
the witness. advised him not 70 laugh
Mis- Alice T. Shepard, sister Of Mrs. Langley. was
then called and corrobonted tn. evidence of Margaret
Oirady In regard 10 hcr recognizing Mr.. Langley as
the man she had at the United states Hotel. and
identified Mr.. LansIey's handwriting in package
Of letters.
Daniel r. Amcs expert In handwriting, was
called 10 prove the identity Of tho handwriting Of the
defendant with that OF the who registered as
w Lawlor and lady Newark on five different oc-
casion, at the United State, Hotel The letters
Identified written by Mr.. Langley BY his sister Inlaw
offered in evidence. md Mr.. Parsons objccuod on
the ground that they confidential comwunlca-
lions between husband and wife EX-Judge Rey-
nolds for the plaintiff. said that thry not to be
read but only TO be used for purposes Of com
parson. Mr. Parsons said II would be running against
an imperative rule Of law. Judge Landon ssld that
the difficulty would be that these the letters the
expert had examined.
Mrs. Langley suggested that one Of her husbands
letters to her father might be produced but that suS
gestiOn not adopted.
Judge Landon admitted the letters and Mr.. Ames
gave testimony that there was no doubt that the
writing in the letters and in the hoel register the
same He hung up n snail blackboard and illustrated
the jury the simlartcs between the two handwrit
lngs lie said Il find that the signatures In the
register personal. and It T. writing that would not
accidentally coincide with another hand. The peculiar
os In these letters correspond exactly with the vara'
ton In the signatures the hotel register
on croes-cNamlnaton tho witness said that he had
doubt that the writing I'm question IDENTICAL
but he admitted that he had made mistakes IN re-
gard TO handwriting. lie admitted that he had not
compared Mr.. Langey's signature with that on the
hotel register.
John j. Vail. cashier Of the Commercial Bank,
testified TO HE confident belief that the same man
wrote the Langley letters and the signatures in
the hotel register. on the point OF the passing OF
forged signatures by bank tellcrs he said he be
neved It was always through earclcssness.
Detective Doechcr recalled and asked about
the woman he saw IN company with Mr. Langley
at the United states Hotel. whom he recently saw
enter No. 2]4 Fftlavc. lie said Mr.. Langley lived
Mt this place. A week ago saturday he saw cab
drive up and woman enter tie house whom lie
believed 10 be the woman he had seen at the
hotel. lie eaw her face distinctly Mr. Langley
came out and paid the cabman. and later ne anu
the woman came ont, went to the corner by Del
monico's separated and again met In Broau"ay anu
went into the second entrance OF the Norman lodse.
The witness added IL watched there until nearly ~
o'clock and nearly froze with the cold
Dose1er and the hallboy, Wells, also recaiieu' ue
cIared TINT the woman with Mr. Langley at t"c
United states Hotel was not Mrs. Langley
This closed the case for the prosecution ana Mr.
Parsons moved that tho case DE ui'iii'''ou 10 II.
trustworthy testimony to support tle aoo"Sa',o"s 'u
been presented. The mouoh WIS "o' ~
ccpton was taken. ,o, ~ Goynor
In opening the for the defence w. o nay nSo
Nv Isoo hy Mrs Langley. when she was Nlns VILE h
u - i~Sh,,d and placed on his track. lie urged NC
nry not to part husband and wife on any snc ,e yn,
dence lie said Mr.. Langley would aeS ,'e aies III
-. ,,.inst him. and experts would rrbut uf cNl
d "s ~ regard 10 handwriting lie closed by say
nr .Whcthcr this wife did Us 81. da o. , il oT w..
1I;,,or mr. whether some serpent has DESTROYED ir
Noi,,io a or ibis household may hereafter be DIS
c"iarcd Before the tribunal OF God inc m9nNes lo'
,n, Ibis suit was brought may be made plain,
WIZ r. William f. Ilagan an expert III Pnnan,nlp'
Ia ,iaed thnt he had examined the signatures III qucs
80 oud that II was easy 10 PICK OUT letter. ,iu
tv,' nf letters and make out that TWO Higha,a',
or . written by the same man. All an expert S1aa 90
W. ~ -, prcss hi, personal opinion Inc oPll"n y,
w.. witness wn, that the signature W. .hwIor WI
not written by Mr. Langley nns a anh serted a
slSio, that Mr. Langley could not nave written
,he signatures in tho hotel register ON nj, ,Ssnre
man,ei ST. Carvalho another expert gave sm'iar
evidence. 4, oour, for The frs, time while
"i. ,tnco Tor Inc defence being pre- 'ente1 lie
vii, h. upon the witness stand to-day