The Portland daily press., 1895-12-12
A STRANGE CASE.
Ii tigation Over Note Found Among
Old Papers.
Did John r. Cressey Make Note and Sign
the Name of Orrin r.. Hooper

| Did John r. Cressey Make a Note and Sign
the Name of Orrin r. Hooper
| In the Superior Court yesterday before
Judge Bonney, there was rather an inter
esting case, that o f Frederick Robbie, exc
cutor of the will of John r. Cressey,
against Orrin R. Hooper of Berwick, on
promisory motto for S203. 10, dated No
vember IA, 1883, and found among the
papers of Mr.. Cressey after his death by
Gov. Robbie, who demanded payment
which Mr.. Hooper refused to make and
a suit was then brought John A. Water
man appeared for Gov. Robbie, and Will
liam S. Mathews of the firm of Edgerly
& Mathews, of Great Falls, N. H., for
Mr.. Hooper. The defence was that the
signature is a forgery.
Gov. ROBBIE did not appear in court but
the finding of the note among the papers
OF Mr.. Cressey was admitted, and Mr..
Waterman called William K. Neal TO the
stand Mr.. Neal qualified as an expert
in handwriting, and was given the note
and also the signature of Mr.. Hooper to
an affidavit filed in the case, and which
was used as standard of comparison
Mr.. Neal gave it as his opinion that the
signature on the note and the signature
attached to the affidavit were written by
the same person. He was closely cross
examined as to his reasons for this con-
olusion, and went very fully into the
points of resemblance he found between
the two signatures. MIR. Waterman made
his case practically one of expert testimo-
ny and the general business and personal
reputation of Mr.. Cressey and having
shown where and under what circumstan-
ces the note was found, rested the case.
Mr.. Mathews in his opening argument,
outlined very interesting theory. He
said that in 1865 Mr. Hooper did hire
$3.50 of Mr.. Cressey, they both being resi-
dents at the time of Somersworth, N. H.,
and that when Mr.. Hooper called on Mr..
Cressey to make a payment of 500, Mr.
Cressey couldn't find the note among his
papers, having in some way misplaced
it, but SAID: 'sThat will make no differ
ence, you can pay me 500 and I'll give
you a receipt for the amount" The
mouey was paid and the receipt given.
stating that it was in part payment of the
note. Later on Mr.. Cooper paid $50 and
took second receipt and on the same
piece Of paper. the interest or all Of the
interest was not paid at the time. Some
years after Mr.. Hooper removed to Man
chester, N. H., and while he was living
there Mr.. Cressey met and said to him:
to-
old note OF his on which there's small
balance due aud 1 want to fix it up"
Mr.. Mathews argued that the "small bal
anc e. referred to was the interest on the
$3.50 note.
After referring to the fact that Gov.
Robbie, the plaintiff in the case, did not
take the stand, and that Mr. Hooper was
barred by that circumstance from being
a witness in the case, he said, that the
only way by which the facts in the case
could be ascertained would be through
the testimony of others and the COMPARE
son of papers. Mr.. Mathews discussed
the question: "How did Mr.. Cressey come
to make this note bearing the signature.
Of Mr.. Hooper if he did make it?n He
said that in his opinion Mr.. Cressey
found the old $3.50 note many years after
it was lost, and of course long after it
was outlawed. and that he figured up the
interest and having forgotten all about
the payments made by Mr. Hooper
thought there Is note honestly due,
but on which I may not get cent
and SO he was led to make the note which
was never presented to Mr.. Hooper for
payment during Mr.. Cressey's lifetime.
Mr.. Mathews said that the note dated
September 9, 1865, with interest COM
pounded, would be two cents more than
the note of 1888, or $2OS. 10 cents on No
vember l., 1885, 1t seemed to him that
this was in itself remarkable circum-
stance showing that Mr.. Cressey did make
the second note himself, and did afixsto
it the name of Mr.. Hooper.
W. Fl. Morton Of Salmon Falls, N. H.,
was the first witness called by Mr..
Mathews, and qualified as an expert in
handwriting. He said he was personally
| familiar with the signature of Mr.. Cres-
sey, butsnotlwith that of Mr. Hooper, al
though both had been depositors of the
bank with which he is connected. Mr.. Cres-
ssy was in the habit of making close col
lections and was in the habit Of leaving
notes with the bank of which the witness
was cashier. Mr.. Mathews had made the
point that Mr.. Hooper's style of writing
changed greatly between 1865 and 1883,
and that the signature on the note of
1885 is substantially like his signature
in 1866. Mr.. Morton took a recent sig
nature of Mr.. Hooper as the standard of
comparison ana said that in his opinion
the signature attached to the note of 1883
was not written by Mr.. Hooper.
Mrs. Myra G. Hooper, wife of the de
fendent, was the next witness and testi-
fed to the date when they returned from
Manchester 10 Somersworth, and of the
change in Mr.. Hooper's writing. A
sharp, clearly defined style changed to a
round and rapid hand She had charge
of the receipts Mr.. Cressey gave her hus-
band. Judge Bonney tried hard to make
the witness understand that she WAS IN