The morning call., 1894-09-15

! Dung ana Carl ElSeD scnlm6l. lie Salu
| Mr. Rodgers bad asked the jury TO SCI
aside their testimony because they were
mere writing-teachers.
''Mr. Rodgers says writing-teache1
! knows nothing about writing" said john
son. Then he selected jurors one by one,
naming them and ihtir occuD tons, and
! endeavored to show by analogy that 10 the
! opinion of Mr.. Rodgers machinist must
! be suppose TO know nothing of machinery,
nor a hardware man of hardware, nor a
! drawiDg-teacher of drawings, nor an cleo
! trical engineer of electricity, ana So forth.
! What nOnsensei Who ought To know more
| of handwriting than teacher of the art
"Wby, according to Mr.. Rodgers, when
| you speak TO a lawyer ana get his advice
/ he's obtaining money under false pre-
| lenses. And, similarly, when you apply
| 10 a doctor and he charges you for medi-
cal advice. Why. The fact that man is
! engaged in teaching writing ami has eeen
| so for twenty-seven years is posi- i've proof
| that be can detect writing IN all It's forms,
| in all its phases. He can detect uDstrokeS,
| downstrokes. backstrOkes and sidestrOkes,
inks, pens, paper, everything.
! Dye remember that Mi. Young said
he had doubts of the first will, that Mr..
! Delmss asked MIN why? Mr.. Young SAID
! he would exnlain on the blackboard. Did
| he not DO so? Did he not seize piece Of
chalk and draw sam Des of small VS.
| found in the first will and unlike any
others found in Henry Martins hand
writing? You'll remember that Mr.. Del
mas dropped that witness" said johnson,
significantly.
They then switched off and brought up
their boeie man, or bOgle woman, again,
Mrs. John Martin. and asked Mr.. Young
about her. Nr. Delmas wasted a whole
afternoon in joking with him on the sub
ject But when il came down to business
Mr.. Young was always ready for them"
,InhnSOn 6nnER nf his RTnaFfs hahn o.
asked for their reasons for thinking this,
that and the other thing. He said such a
proceeding was quite unusual, some of the
highest experts IN the land always refus-
ing to give reasons for their opinions. He
quoted famous London expert who never
gave reasons-because he couldn't! Add
yet his testimony was invariably accepted
in the very largest cases. So the Indian
following a particular trail. He couldn't
tell why he did so, but he did, and he
achieved his purpose. So again the coin
expert in the treasury at Washington. He
couldn't explain why he thought com
was bad, but be judged by general appear
anceS and by his instinct, and he was never
deceived.
But when l put Mr.. Eisenschmei on
the stand | yielded to the example of the
other side and l asked him for reasons. l
asked him and he gave them. Aud he
gave them so clearly and eo1ciSely that
the other side could do nothing with him,
but let him 60.
"PTepondersnce of testimony ought not
| to carry verdict in this case: il ought to
be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, be-
cause they are charging crime, they are
charging forgery and perjury in this case
And they must prove these charges beyond
all reasonable doubt.
but II II comes down TO prepoDdeTance
OF evidence of experts III this case, where
| is it? Where is such prepoHderance We
put on the stand two experts 10 their one,
and all, in my Judgment, the equal, II not
the superior. of Sir. Breckenfeldi
Render a verdict exactly as the law re-
Quires, gentlemen of The jury. Render ii
as the law would have had il bad there
been no will of Henry Martin at all. Give
this little boy the one-third of his uucle's
estate he is entitled to. Do this and
heaven will smile upon you. Let the ex-
perts 90, TO dream away the happy hours
IN their self-conceit and your consciences
will satisfy your judgment in the years to
come
johnson was perfectly willing to take
up the challenge with regard to tie dis
puted Letters. Speaking of that bearing
date October s, 1892, he said he was willing
to admit that if Henry Martin did not
write that letter he did not write the sec
ond will. But, in his opinion, the letter
was proved to be genuine beyond all man
ner of doubt.
! Henry Hoffman's testimony was of the
| utmost Importance, and it was curious
| that Mr.. Rodgers had nothing to say about
| il; dld not assaii il. Why did he not? At
| this point the learned counsel delivered a
eulogiSm upon Henry Hoffman that made
that young mans cheeks Jingle with pleas
| ure; johnson Landed him to the skies. and
held him up as pattern young man, who
| stood by his mother in her aft lctiOn, who
| stood there 10 protect her against her as
salants; young man 10 be proud of; a
| young man with nearly three score wears
| of lie in front III him in which TO earn
| fame and fOrtunei
Passing from Hoffman, Mr.. johnson
said:
The fourth evidence of that letter is
| given by Mrs. John Martin. She is their
witness, not ours. Grant all that Mr..
| Delmas has said and will say. Grant that
he will pick her testimony 10 pieces; grant
that he VIII sneer at it in that calm, cold,
cynical way of which he is past master.
! And still she is their witness. And her
testimony, il entitled to weight. as it is, is
entitled to credence at the hands of those
who put her on the stand.
The fifth evidence OF this letter is fur
nished by the receipt from the Pacific
Bank" Here the counsel produced the
receipt and handed ii to the Jury II wa.
| shares of quicksilver stock which counsel
| claimed that Mrs. John Martin sent
| to her br0tber-in-law 10 obedience tc
instructions contained in the disputed
letter of October s, 1892.
But this was not al the proof of tbi.
letter. Johnson had still another ana a
| stronger card to plav. 1t was with regard
TO letter dated November %, 1892 in
| which Henry Martin wrote to a lawyer
ID. q. Reed, acknowledging that he had
written TO his slster-n-law demanding
some shares OF stock, and fearing that she
might keep them back out of very mean
ness" The same letter ended with ths
acknowledgment that the package OF
shares had just arrived. johnson said
we have stronger evidence than that
we have knocked upon the portals of the
grave. We have brought Henry Martin
side for bringing in this evidence. 1t is q
letter from Henry Martin TO d. G. Reed
dated November 90, 1892
we did not know OF the letter till after
it was introduced; we could not have
| found it. This man Reed that this lettel
| is addressed 10 is their lawyer, not ours
their friend, not ours. He is one of tn,
Gideon band that have met together like
the witches of Macbeth, and have danced
! around the caldron in which they poured
| all their haired of this woman and from
which they have brought out this vas-
| mass OF testimony which they have fired
at this defenseless woman.
He is one Of the band of conspirators
He Is one Of the other side. We could no,
have got that letter. | said yesterday
under the providence of God the truth has
been made manifest here, ana we have
here the letter OF Henry Martin himself
dated November %, 1892, in which be