The herald., 1896-08-14

| condition. Then the letters would be
more misshapen and the angles OF the
| waves be much sharper.
Another very strong circumstance is
! the existence of Exhibit w, the other
signature. No matter how that sigma
| ture came into the case, nor where 1t
| came from, IL amounts to demonstra-
| tion that II was the original from which
| this signature was traced. 1t could
| scarcely be denied that one signature
| must have been made from the other.
! An imposition of one paper upon the
! other shows the outlines of each of the
| letters in both signatures. even to the
smallest detail. are identical The lit
| tie waves exist in one signature and not
| in the other Exhibit w has the ordina-
ry bold. clear. regular stroke of man
making his signature in his usual and
| ordinary way. The signature in con-
| troversy. on the other hand, has, as
say, these wavy and irregular lines.
showing a slow rate of speed. as the
experts have said. 1t is not so far as the
evidence shows, possible for that sig
nature, Exhibit w, to have been traced
from the signature upon the document
in question. OF course we can imagine
that photograph may have been made.
but we can just as well imagine. sup
pose. that Exhibit had been distracted
in some way and this Exhibit W had
been made from II for the purposes of
this case. But we cannot go into the
realm of imagination to find theory
to sustain document. There is no evil
dence that this document in question has
ever been in the custody Of any person
who could have made Exhibit w from 1t.
on the contrary. the evidence shows the
contrary. 1t shows that it has not been
in the custody of any person except the
attorneys for the defendant. who could
by any possibility have had an oppor-
tunity of tracing the Exhibit w from
the signature on Exhibit l; and of course
the character of these attorneys puts it
beyond any suggestion of such thing.
This being the case with Exhibit w, the
conclusion is almost irresistible that the
signature in controversy was made from
Exhibit W; and a comparison of the
two corroborates that theory very con-
Clusively
In addition to this. of course, there is
the testimony of the witnesses. I do
not deem it necessary to weigh the prob
able Veracity of the various witnesses
on the two sides in that particular. Their
appearance on the witness stand. so far
as their intelligence was concerned. was
about equal. The appearance of Antunez
was. perhaps, more creditable. so far
as his honesty of appearance was con-
cerned. than either of the others. But
l do not deem it necessary to weigh
their evidence very closely. because the
other evidence in the case satisfies my
mind that this is a forgery: and. il that
is true as a matter of course, the two
witnesses who testified they signed it
as witnesses must have committed per-
jury upon the stand.
The document being declared a for
gerry it is unnecessary to decide some of
the other issues. l do find. however.
that the plainaiff is not incompetent.
I do not believe the adjudication of in
Naf hay, 20 n TO
pointed is conclusive evidence of incom-
potency. 1t would hardly be possible
that "a man could, by getting himself
adjudicated insane, estop everybody
forever from ever disputing that. and
thereby give him a chance to evade the
statute of limitations. That would be
the result of it, if it has the effect which
is claimed for it. He is not a strong
minded man. of course. He is not a
provident man. 1t is very clear that he
is spendthrift. and there has been
some evidence indicating that he was in
clined to drunkenness. All of this would
be sufficient to explain the very con-
safeguards which have always
been thrown aroud him concerning his
being allowed to have money
In regard to the estoppel of the judg-
ment which is pleaded as an estoppel,
and the statute of limitations which Is
also pleaded. 1 don't think it will be nee
cSSdlI lOl tlie COuIl " any
opinion, because the document being
forgery. the conclusion would follow
that the defendant is entitled to judg-
ment in the case. Findings will be
drawn as indicated, and the judgment
will follow.
Mr.. White-Your honor. would sug-
gest that we might, in order to get the
benefit. if there is any benefit to it. of
the plea regarding the judgment-we
might set the fact out
The Court-You may find the judg-
ment was rendered. of course.
Mr. White-Yes sir.
The Court-And that will show. also
all the facts necessary to be shown in
regard to the statute of limitations.
There is no evidence of any demand
being made, except the evidence of this
suit in 1891. So far as that proves de-
mand, of course that would show for
itself. There is no evidence satisfactory
sion l have come to shows there could
not be, that Mr.. Yndart had any knowl-
edge of this document at all until '95
Mr.. Swanwick-If the court please,
there are certain allegations in the
affirmative defense set UP in the answer
in regard to the conspiracy. alleging.
amoung other things. that the plaintiff
and his guardian entered into the con-
spracy.
The Court-Well. on that issue I find
there is no evidence Of any conspiracy,
other than this: That the plaintiff has
avaied himself of the frauds and for
geries which believe were made by his
uncle, Manuel but l don't think that the
plaintiff was aware of the fact that it
was a forgery. l believe the plaintiff
was acting in good faith. He is rather
credulous in his nature, and he might.
have simply suspicioned there
was something wrong: but he wasn't q
party to any conspiracy. I don't recall
any other issues that it is necessary to
state now; but if there are, will settle
them.