The evening times., 1896-05-25
HECHT & COMPANY,
SIS Seventh St.

| writing of the deceased. Witness replied
| that it was. Two letters OF September,
| 1873, were also, o,showr the witness. but he
would not assert positively that they were
N Judge Hollis handwriting. The hand
writing OF the testator varied, the witness
said.
| More questions concerning the identi!ica-
tiou of the handwriting of Judge Holt =. it
| appeared in official papers and further
queries concerning his formation of certain
| letters were asked.
| The will OF 1sas was sifowu to the wit
| ness.
| That was dated fifteen years before l
knew Judge Holt said he. but l think
II has n similar Appearance 70 his writing as
| I knew it,
| AN OBJECTION sADE.
| Mr.. Darlington was preparing to ask
| questions concerning the variations be-
| tween the two wills when Mr.. worthington
| objected because the viii of rs was not
| yet in evidence
| A short controversy between counsel en-
| sued, and during which Mr.. Darlington
offered 10 place the paper in evidence.
| Now would be good time" said Mr..
| WOrthington: we are willing
| Mr.. Darlington read the revoked will
10 the jury. An entirely different dispo-
| siiiou OF his property was made by the
| estator at that time, when many OF his
| near relatives were living. Judge Holt
| was then living in Louisville. Ky. He
| had six slaves in the family, three of whom
| We're to be emancipated at their ma jOrity
| and the remaining three to be liberated
at the death of the maker of the will.
A bequest OF $1,000 was made 10 the
| American Tract Society of New York, and
| similar sum each was left to t. wo orphan
| age societies in Louisville. The testator
called attention to the fact in closing the
| will that it was written entirely in his own
hand.
| Once more Mr.. Darlington put the occu-
| pant Of the witness chair through an exami-
| nation concerning the peculiar character
istics OF the Judge advocates chirography.
He was called upon to point out the
distinctions between the manufacture Of
.etters in the two papers before him.
| The paper passed before the jurors for
heir individual inspection as the witness
| explained each discrepancy.
| THE WRAPPER IN EVIDENCE.
| The wrapper OF the will of 1S4s. on which
| Judge Holt had written his revocation,
| was offered in evidence. MIR. worthington
asked the Jurors to lcok at the signature
Oh the wrapper and the one at the foot of
Mr.. Deviin's discharge. paper already in
| evidence, and to compare them with the
name and signature as they appeared in
| the alleged will of1ST3.
| Did you not talk with Mr.. Lee and tell
| him your connection with the case?" asked
Mr.. Worthin gton.
| II object" interposed Mr.. Darlington
| The witness proceeded to answer in spite OF
| the objection.
4 Col. winthrop, you are certainly la ".
| yer enough To know you cannot testify pend
| ing an objection" said MIR Darlington
sharply,
Mr.. Worthngtnn withdre W his question.
You have heard the paper of IS4s read, >
said Mr.. wortbngton. Did it sound like
his styie?"
The witness answered after Judge Brad
ley had overruled Mr. Darlingtou's objec
tion to the question.
| 1T exhibits his characteristics as q In W
yer, as I knew him. II is a awyerlike
paper. dra wn upiu great precision, and with
careful detail."ii
The revoked Will was read in part BY
| Mr. worthington. who designated each
| comma period dash and space in the
wr ting. and who then asked how it CON-
pared in characteristics of punctuation
with the last para graph OF the alleged will
OF 1873. II
Objections were again interpoSed by
counsel for the beheficidries under the will
Judge Bradley sustained them. and the
question was withdrawn.
The court then took half hours recess.
Mr.. worthington. after recess read TO the
jury a conveyance drawn by Judge Holt
| many years before his death. in which he
| transferred n farm near Louisville to the
| wife of Washington u. Holt.
The object of offering the paper ia
| evidence. the attorney stated. was to show
ments.