The morning call., 1894-07-18

from Judge Coffey, OF from Mrs. John
mo. he had not | think he said he had
asked permission from Judge Williams"
Are you sure he did ?'
''No, not sure"
Now. don't you know that Captain
Lees never mentioned Judge Williams
name?"
II don't know one way or the other"
replied the witness. II know Captain
Lees asked Tor the copy, and | thought he
would not do so unless he bad the right"
Captain Lees did not pay for 1t, though,
did he?"
mo, he did mott
Arthur Rodgers then called Henry Hoff-
man, but Grove L. Johnson iuterposed
and said that he was willing to admit that
Hoffman called upon Merrill and took
away The negatives. and also that he had
been sent for that purpose by his mother.
Mrs. John Martin. The admission was
accepted.
A. II. BreckeEfeld said he was an &C.
countant in the London, Paris and Ameri-
can Bank. He had been for some years in
the banking business and had been Occa-
sionally called upon to act as paying
teller
In the course of your business have you
hanf writingP"
Yes, have had almost daily TO do So"
"Have you testified as an expert%'
Yes, frequently, In this ana other
States" The witness told how that nine
teen years ago, when 10 San Jose, the
bank where he was employed suffered a
big loss owing 10 an eXcellently forged
check. Since then he had determined to
study the subject and the use of the micro
scope. He had proved himself useful as
an expert several times since then.
What are the methods employed by
youP"
II have used the microscope and the
| camera besides in connection with it. All
for the purpose of making drawings in
cases of disputed writings"
Mr.. Rodgers showed the witness the two
wills Of Henry Martin. He sand he had
examined both documents. as we'll as the
exhibits offered as specimens Of the de-
ceased's handwriting. He had also seen the
photographs offered in evidence. In max
ing his investigation. the witness had
used the photographs in part and the
originals in part.
Now. assuming the will dated Nav
16. 1890. to be in the handwriting Of
Henry Martin. and exhibits introduced
| herein are also in his handwriting, do
you say that this purported Will. dated
February q, 1898, is also in Henry Mar
tins hand?"
The witness replied that after careful
examination he was convinced that the
disputed will was not in the handwriting
of the deceased. Certain peculiarilies.
always to be found in any persons style
OF writing. were not to be found here.
Point out those pecullarities."
The witness replied: First, that the
general appearance of the document
caused him to give such an opinion. For
instance, the size, shape and slant OF the
letters In the disputed document were
dlherent: Again, the tremulousness
| shawn in formjnU leitnrs was
antithesis to the frmness and rouUdness
OF the letters in the original will. Several
| speclhc peculiaritles were pointed out by
the witness. There were slanting us,
upright rs" letters lightly shaded and
letters darkly shaded, all tending to show
| that Henry Martin did not write the dis
puted document
But the chief point upon which the wit
ness based his opinion appeared to be the
rouDdness OF writing in the disputed will
as compared with the uniformly angular
style OF Henry Martins handwriting. His
remarks We're illustrated by specimens
| culled from various exhibits introduced as
we'll as from the two wills.
! Inc witness got into little trouble
through constantly referring to the first
Will as the admitted WILL" while he
spoke OF the second as 1.-THE disputed docu-
ment. Grove L. johnson objected to
this I'VE don't admit any first WILL" he
| said.
well, it's been admitted to probate"
suggested Arthur Rodgers.
| II don't care; ] don't admit it was a
Will at all, returned Johnson. Let this
witness refer to it IN proper manner"
Judge Cotfey agreed 10 this, and the wit
! ness was Instructed TO speak of the two
documents as the first" and second"
| wills.
1t was very lengthy lecture that Expert
Breckenfeld gave TO the court and jury Tn
the subject. He had got to his hundred
until IL A. NJ. to-day