Evening star., 1896-06-18

irgton. Mr.. Hagan said that in his opin-
ion the testimony of non-eXpert witnesses
on the subject of handwriting is of little
or no value. Forgeries, to be worth con-
s:dering at all, must be so well done that
they can deceive those who are merely
familiar in q general way with the persons
Handwriting. Forgery Is such fine art
that it takes expert and a microscope
to discover it. When wills are forged, he
said the work Is sometimes done by eX-
perts in tie busiress, who become parties
to the crime and share in the benefits, but
as rule it is the wCrk Of amateurs.
Loop Letters.
Mr.. Wor;hington then led the witness
into the field Of letters and directed his at
tention to the matter of final "ts'' in the
Holt letter of 1873. getting him to point
out those that were looped In It there
were fifteen without and four with loops
In number Of letters that were examine
in this way it was found that the propor-
ton of the looped final rs tc the un-
locped was sixty-nine to five. Mr.. Worth
il gton called attention to the discrepancy
between this condition of affairs and that
in the will, where the proportion is one to
eleven, with four where the loops are filled
in solidly
This is but fair sample of the minute
ness with which Mr. WorthiDgton conduct
ed the ecross-exsmination. Then the forma-
ticn of the figures in the date lines was
gone into at length Mr.. Worthington's S
contention being that the in the Will is
an exact fac simie of that in the letter Of
the same date. but unlike any 20 be
found in any of the other letters. The
cross-examination was not concluded until
II 30 o'clock.
On redirect. the witness reiterated his
opinion as to the genuineness OF the Will,
ter of February H., 1855. the judge wrote
the word washington almost precisely
as it is ir the will. the differences being
no more marked than between the same
he lot n
same date.
The transparent gelatine film photographs
of the will, the letter of February !, 1873
and the one Of 1883 were arranged side by
side on the big table in front of the jury
and then in such way that the films could
be placed upon the letters. and the jury,
two by two, were called out of the box to
make an inspection and comparison for
themselves. 1t was slow and rather tedious
work at best. Mr.. Hagan stood beside the
exhibits and pointed out the details that
showed similarity. Mr.. Worthington fol-
lowed the proceeding with a watchful eye
The other lawyers had nothing at all to
do, there wcs nothing for the spectators to
hear, the stenographers took a rest and
Judge Bradley spent the time In conver-
sation with Lawyer Mattfngly.
Mr. Worthington called the witness at
tention to the word standard in the will
end the same word in one of the letters
Mr. Hagan said that one was very fair
representation of the other. Mr.. Worthing
tentions that the word in the will, which
was at any rate superfiuous, had been
traced or copied bodily from the word in
the letter.
Other features were gone into at length
in the same way. this sort of testimony oc-
cupying the attention of the court until
recess.
Comparing Words.
The redirect examination was continued
after recess. The witness again said that
he was satisfied that the will was not made
by tracing, but that it was written by
Judge Holt. He said that he did not think
it was possible for a person to copy cne
letter from one word and another from
another word, and so make new words. 1t
would be evident the face of It, and
and there would be marks of slowness in
the result.
Mr.. Worthington asked him If it might
not be possible for a person to trace part
of a word. and copy or write in the bal
ance.. He said that it might, but that it
would be easy to detect it. Mr.. Worthng-
ton asked the witness whether he had