Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-05-21
At best 1t was very unsatisfactory sigma

At best 1t was a very unsatisfactory sigma
ture.
"Why?
From the character of the document TO
which 1t appears to be here attached"
Colonel Barr again expressed himself as
convinced that the document as whole
was not i'll the judges handwriting.
Again he was asked why.
Because of the unfamiliarity Of the
whole document. Judge Holt wrote a
cramped hand, but at the same time a
paper of his was finished and even, while
this. looks ragged and as though it had
been written at various times
In answer to a question from Mr.. OAR
of words in the alleged will that he did
not think were ever written by the judge.
He characterized several as being written
In too free hand for a man who held his
pen as did Judge Holt. The will then
handed around among the jury for them
to examine these different points.
Col Barr said that he did not think that
Judge Holt would ever have written Maj.
MAR" making it neither a full word nor
marking 1t an abbreviation with a Pc
Rod. Judge Holt was always careful about
punctuation.
Inherit in the WILL which Col Barr had
spoken of as improper from legal point CT
view Mr.. Darlington asked him what word
he would have used in its stead.
Mr. Worthington objected. The witness
expressed his perfect willingness to answer
the question. but Judge Bradley ruled it
out as incompetent.
Col. Barr was then asked to point out in
what other points the will was ambiguous.
In the form of that part relating TO the
trust, In that 1t creates the trust after the
devise Of property to Miss Throckmorton.
1t Is not clear exposition of the nature
of the trust"
Mr.. Darlington handed the witness sew
eral letters from Judge Holt, dated In Feb
ruary. 1873. and asked him whether in his
opinion, they were in the judges handwrit-
Ing. He said they were. Theywere not placed
in evidence. paper purporting to be an
earlier will signed by Judge Holt In 1913
was then handed to the witness. Col. Barr
said that while 1t was dated long before he
made Judge Hollis acquaintance he still
believed it was written by him.
Before the redirect examination was
started Col. Barr requested that he be al
lowed to make an explanation He said
that his mind had been so suddenly direct
ed from one line OF examination to another
that he had unwittngly transposed the
Terms caVeator and caveatee. He then eX-
planned them in manner that would have
satisfied law examiner and cleared him
OF all suspicion Of weakness on such law
points.
Pronounced n Forgery.
The next witness called was ex-Post-
master General Horatio King. He said
that he was eighty-four years Of age, and
for many years connected with the govern
ment service. He said that his acquaint-
ance with Judge Holt commenced In 1879
For years there was an intimate friendship
between them. and the witness said that
he was perfectly familiar with Judge Hollis
handwriting. During the last four or five
years of Judge Hollis life when his health
began to fall the general said he rarely
let week go by without going I'D on the
hill to see him. The friendship between
them grew stronger with the passing
years.
General King said that he now has in
his possession more than twenty letters
from Judge Holt. running from 1863 to
1881. or even later.
General King was then shown the alleged
Will and questioned about 1t.
Unquestionably it is not in the hand
writing of Judge Holt" said General
hlns. Were the signature attached to a
letter or mine l would not hesitate to say
IL was genuine. but in connection with this
document do not think it is
And Why" asked Mr.. Wilson.
Because L believe the whole thing is a
gross bungling, fraud replied General
King. III an impressive and earnest tone
of voice.
The crowded court room had awaited the
answer In the deepest silence. When it
came hum and buzz, as of surprise. went
up.
Mr.. Wilson conducted the examination,
and at his request General King gave the
not genuine. He pointed out number
of little details in the alleged will wherein
he thought discrepancies We're evident.
Furthermore" said General King
Judge Holt was highly educated and
cultured man, while this document ap-
pears to have been written by a.
I'VE object, wo object" exclaimed Mr.
Darlington quickly.
Further along General King expressed
doubt as to the Senuineness of the sigma
lures of the three witnesses to the alleged
will.
Mr.. Wilson asked that this be stricken
out, as it was not in response to any ques-
ton.
Mr.. Darlington objected, as it went to
snow TO what an extent General King
could speak of the whole paper.
MIR. Worthiugton protested that even so
Of personal property the signatures of the
witnesses are not vital part of the will.
Judge Bradley ruled the statement out
of evidence.
On cross-eXamiration General King said
that in the alleged will he had counted
fifteen places where Judge Holt would
have placed commas. There are none in
these places in the paper. There were
four or five places. said General King
where Judge Holt would naturally, with
his habits of preciseness, have put periods
where none are.
In the courss of Gen. Kings testimony
he invariably spoke of the testator in the
alleged will Gen" Holt.
Gen. Holt" he took occasion to say,
was never judge; he never sat on the
bench
Gen. King, in answer to a question from