The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-02
ALIBT FOR NUM-.
1T Is Admitted as to Two of the
Dates Sworn To-

Ihe defense in the case of the state against
A. ii. Num- made rapid Roadway yesterday,
the outlook being for the determination of
the case this week. Yesterday morning it
was shown that c. n. Dickey had made
trip to Litchfield for the purpose Of obtaining
information as to whether or not A. H. Num-
was at that place June 10 and H. and came
into court and admitted that he had been
there on the dates mentioned. This was i'm
portant, as Mr. Dickey had sworn in his evil
dence that he had seen Num- in the clerks
Office on those days hanging about, and was
suspicious OF him: Expert testimony, and
the story Of the defendant, were the chief
features during the day,
The defense opened the proceedings by plac-
ing It's evidence, the bottle of writing fluid
for the purpose of allowing the jury to eX-
pertinent with the ink used about the court
house.
C. C. Curtiss the expert in handwriting,
was sworn and handed a paper with writing
upon it, which he said was written with Ar
nold's writing fluid. He made the marks
himself with this ink and used blotter upon
them Immediately Friday, Nov. 26, at 1927
o'clock. Certain other writings on the same
paper he made the same day, at 4:27 o'clock,
using blotter also. Still other writings he
placed upon the paper Nov. q, at 1850 O'Clock
a. M, forty-eight hours before Witness Alt
now was on the stand Monday. A portion of
the marks were made SiXty-Seyen hours be-
fore Witness Altnow was shown the paper
A large sheet of paper was shown the wit
ness, which he swCre was the same paper
used by the state In its tax lists. He had
made certain writings upon this paper the
first Nov. 5, which were unblotted. Other
writings were made threon Nov. u, and still
others Nov. %, an hour before the witness,
Altnow, testified. Another sheet was handed
the witness, which was a blank tax sheet.
Upon the headings Of columns, the witness
had made erasures, like those specified in the
indictment. These marks were made Satur
day last and blctter was used directly
afterward. Some writings he had placed on
the paper, about an hour before Witness All
now testified. Another exhibit showed three
lines of writing, some having been blotted
and others not.
Mr. Curtiss was shown the blotter. and
with the aid Of mirror examined the mark
ings upon it. He stated that he could make
out several figures, and they were, in his
opinion, made by the same hand. The other
side of the blotter was shown him. but he
could not decpher the marks thereon.
Cross examined, the state showed the ink
marks on the blotter made by the stenog
rapher in marking it as an exhibit, and also
marks made on calendered paper later, and
asked witness to note If there was any
that it was an unfair comparison, as one
mark was on a blotter, and the other on
smooth paper, but it was allowed to go in
for what it was worth. The witness assert
ed that he could not judge from the exhibits
when the marks were made.
Andrew H. Nelson testified that he was
in the Office Of the county attorney June
r. the day the crime is alleged to have
been committed. and there has saw Num-
hand Al. ]. Smith a paper, and tell him he
would give him notes for certain evidence he
wanted Num- handed Smith a paper with
notatons upon it.
Frank Barnard swore that he had talked
with Witness Hemperley, who had told him
that he did not see Num- mark on the book,
but 1t looked to him as II he had made
marks upon 1t.
In the afternoon o. F. G. Day, court re-
porter for the Tribune, was sworn by the
defense and stated that Mr. Ryburg had
told him, in a conversation the Saturday
of the occurrence, that he did not see the
defendant write upon the page OF the DOOR,
and that he could not tell whether it was
pen or pencil that the defendant was using
A. H. Num- was sworn to testify IN ms
own behalf and a bunch of Cancelled checks,
nine in number, were handed him to lay
the foundation of expert testimony. He
swore that the checks were in his handWrit-
ing face and signature, figures and ali.
C. c.. Curtiss was recalled, after having
had the blotter with him during the noon
hour, and testified that he had examined the
writings of Mr.. Num- and compared his
figures with those on the bother.
From that comparison, were they or
were they not made by the same hand?"
asked Mr.. Brown.
81 don't think they WERE -,
The witness had made experiments with
writing fluid, writing upon paper and
that kind cannot be made to blur, by rub
bling it with the finger. a half hour after
The defendant followed with his story of
III
ransements with Assistant County Attorney
Smith to help him in the trial Of the tax cases
and promised to give him list of the cases
in which there were mistakes. the llsts,
nrior to June r. witness had looked over
number of volumes of the tax list. That day
Mr.. Smith asked him if he had completed
the list yet He said he had not witness
stated that he went into the vault and made
some examinations, in company with ATTORNEY
Willard. Later he remembered that he had
them, and he went to volume l, the book in
question. and took it down, carrying 1t to the
table, laying it near where George Hemperly
was sitting. Hemperly was not three feet
AWAY from him. The witness found the first
mistake at mage 8, and took out memoran-
DUN he had in his pocket, which had been
made before AS he found the page he made
a note of it on his memorandum he old
not go clear through the book as he had an
appointment at his Office at 10 o'clock. He
only went as far as page 100 when he stopped,
closed and put up the book, and left the Of
fee The memorandum was the one he was
preparing for Mr.. Smith.
'Did you use a blotter?"
yes, sir after 1 had turned about fifty
pages of the book, I found blotter in the
book. I had no use for blotter, and while
I might have used it as a book mark, that
is ali l did with it. When l came back from
nutting I'D the book in the case l came to
the table, and picked up my memorandum
and picked up q blotter, which suppose was
the same one, and laid it over on the other
table"
Hemperly said you did
NO sir I did not.
as this the same blotter you used then?"
at can't say whether 1t is or not
The witness produced a fountain pen, and
asserted that he had used it in taking notes
on his memorandum. He had filled it with
Arnold's writing fluid from bottle in the
court house. The crosse examination will be-
gin today.