The morning call., 1894-09-08
AFTER TWO DAYS.
Arthur Rodgers Closes His
:. Speech.
A SOUND, LOGICAL ARGUMENT
: Tore Very Large Holes in the
Disputed Documents.
ACCORDING TO HIS OWN IDEAS.
The History of the WHIPS Discovery
RidicuIed-It Is Walter Linforth's
Turn Next.
ACCORDING TO HIS OWN IDEAS.


,companied by her child-her first appear
ance since her battle royal with Mr..
: deynemann on Wednesday. She looked
none the worse for wear and listened very
patiently while Mr.. Rodgers proceeded to
lid up her case. The policeman with the
large cameo ring was again in attendance.
Judge COffey was calm and cool, despite
the fact that he is the recipient of several
threatening letters anent this case. Under
the head of "anunimus" he received an
especially belligerent letter the other day.
But the Probate Judge does his duty
throughout, and it is understood that he is
still unprovided with a six-shooter.
Arthur Rodgers resumed his opening
argument at once. Having left off on the
previous day with a brief explanation OF
the expert testimony introduced at the
trial, he proceeded TO give little lecture
Of his own and in his own way to point out
the amazing difference between the genu-
inc handwriting of Henry Martin and that
. of the disputed documents. The following
are examples of his expert style:
"Here is the last M that Martin ever
wrote. 1t is the 'M' in the signature to the
Sargent letter of February q, 1898" Tie
counsel showed that the singular charac-
teTistic was there as In all his other ad-
milted writings. 'In fact" said be, "the
EXTREMIST case is one of aDgularity, one
illustrated to you by Mr.. Breckenfeld
himself.
81 show you these documents TO illus
trate my point, that The greater number of
characteristics In this document which are
not found in the writings of Henry Mar
: tin the less likely it is to be genuine.
"Certain characteristics are to be found
in the admitted writings. In the second
will il is uniformly the other way. The
e n hpr n q arlSf las ora of q Ifafin he
ceptiOns occur six times iu one sheet of
paper here. Is it possible to believe it?"
After speaking OF the curves of the "y's"
and the dott ng OF the ''Ps," Mr.. Rodgers
said:
"Henry Martin did not retrace his sig
natures. Did the man who signed his
name to a letter on that very 23d of Fab
ruary write also that other signature, so
lhbOriously retraced as it is? Henry Mar
tin did not put somebody else's character
istics into his writing. Henry Martin did
not write that document!
"One illustration more. In that second
will there is not a period. not a dash,
except that between The two sections of
the word 'great-ful.' In all other writings
of Henry Martin they are 10 be found.
'Iu word, gentlemen. the character
istics Of Henry Martins Handwriting are
not found in this will, and l ask you TO say
that 1t Is not genuine"
Arthur Rodgers then prod uced the
OCTOBER s, 1892, to show that the same
characteristics ara visible as in the second
viii. In fact the counsel claimed that
these letters, together with that of Febru-
aTy q, 1892, were all written by the same
hand Henry Martin wrote a bold, firm
hand. You will observe that all these
letters are written in what l call a draw
ing hand-a labored hand"
d. Rodgers then called attention to Breck-
enteld's testimony on the subject of inks.
Ia vi v,fa 81, L.
he was pulled up by Grove johnson, who
had been sitting quiet for quite a long
time. Johnson apoiOgiZed for his inter-
ruption, but sai1 he merely wished to
warn counsel that he claimed the right to
make similar argument
Rodgers pulled up. "If my argument is
= improper, your Honor. [ will STOP"
"Oh, no. Mr.. Rodgers" was the judicial
reply. Counsel merely desired to give
you note of warning. Proceed"
Rodgers was yet quite warm on the sub
ieCt Of this October letter, which called
tor some shares of quicksilver stock. This
letter, il will be remembered. caused some
confusion among the experts. where il
the genuine letter? What became of it?
Gentlemen of the jury, that letter was re-
traced, all but the heading and the enu.
The words Dear Belle and with love-
were subs iluted for the originals"
Then the wording of the letter was in
consistent Martin wrote to his sister-ip-
law telling her practically that the deten-
tion OF the stock would do no good, as be
presumed he could get it from the seere-
tary. Are the closing words 'Wich love-
consistent with the general tenor of this
letter? l think not"
The firmness which characterized tbs
penmanship in Henry Martins admittedly
genuine letters as opposed to the tram
uous retracing of characters in the dis
puted documents proved an endless soprca
of comment TO Mr. Rodgers is his ais
course Then he proceeded to drive more
nails into the coffin Of the February "a
letter
'This letter of February a is dated
wrongly. 1t is dated 1892 instead of 1893
That was a trick to deceive You. That
was done in order that you might say,
Henry Martin might make such a mis-
take; forger would never do so'"
Rodgers endeaVored to show that the
same hand did not write the second will
on one day and the letter of February "a.
1892, on the next He pointed out several
instances Of great dssimiarty, all, of
course, with the object OF impressIng upon
the jury his contention that the February
"a letter was written at another, later,
date. He said:
's,rhis letter was written for the purpose
of deceiving us after Mr.. Breckenfelds
criticisms on the other writings had been
passed. This letter was forged in the
temple of justice, almost. in our very
presence. Why was that letter kept from
her counsel? Simply because she had no
letter before that and because it was
necessary to produce one to meet the
crushing criticisms of Mr.. Breckenfeld,
and so It was fabricated while the trial
was going on.
But the fabricator went too far. The
fabrlcatoT was too steady, too sure, and
put some OF the fabricator's own charac-
.terlstcs into that letter! Gentlemen,
Henry Martin did not write that letter,
fabricated alter July 15 1894; and il ne
ola not write that letter he did not write
the second will.
1--WE are told that Mrs. Martin obeyed a
promise to her mother in not showing
this letter. When did she see her motherP
October, 1893. When did she first see the
letter? March q. 1893! And she showed
the will to Judge Williams within one
month of its discovery.
"You have seen Mrs. Martin on the
stand. Is she the woman to oDey such a
PROMISE? No. She would have made no
such promise, and would have Concealed
nothing to help her case. If this letter
and this will we're put into the same en-
velope and so found would she not have
gone TO her attorney. and, showing him the
letter, said, Here is the additional proof?
'We are told that Henry Martin went to
Mrs. Tibbets' house taat morning of
February "a. We are told be left will
there. Why should he write letter If be
went there to see Mrs. JOhn2 What need