The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-31
BANKERS ARE CALLED UPON
TO COMPARE THE DISPUTED SIG
NATURE WITH THE WRITING
IN HIS DOCKET.
COURT TOOK A SHORT VACATION
Adjourning Early to Permit Counsel
to Get More Experts for This
Morning.

citizens declared In the probate court
yesterday, that the marriage cert1i-
cate put forth by Joseph Waters as
proof that he was welded to Mrs.
Mintzer, on March "a, 1892, was not
written or signed by the same hand
| that wrote up the docket of Justice
of the Peace Burgess.
The experts were equally unanimous
| in declaring that the signatures Of
Father Bigot and William Hickey
| to the certificate were not written by
the same people who wrote signatures
well authenticated as theirs, which APP
| peared on other exhibits. The und1s-
puted signatures Of Father Bigot that
appear in the marriage record book of
st. Louis church were pronounced by
all the experts to have been written
by a different person than the one
who subscribed the alleged certificate.
Among expert witnesses called were
Delos A Monfort, Frank A. Seymour,
| Herman Scheffer and N. P. Langford.
The first witness called In the fore
noon was Rev. Father Hefforn, rector
Of the st. Paul seminary, formerly
rector of the cathedral parish. He
was examined concerning the rules of
the Catholic church with respect to
the ceremony of marriage.
1t has all along been claimed by the
proponents of the will, that it was i'm
possible that Father Bigot should have
been present at the marriage in the
office of Justice Of the Peace Burgess,
and the testimony of Father Heffron
went to demonstrate that it was prac-
tically impossible, under the rule of
the Catholic church, that Father Bigot
could have been witness to the mar
riage or could have countenanced it.
Father Heffron's testimony was prac-
tically as follows:
@. You are familiar with the canon law
Of the Catholic church, and the discipline OF
the Catholic church governing clergymen?
A. Yes. sir.
O. Now, 1 want to know, doctor, if in 1892
rules of the Catholic church for a Catholic
priest to assist with a civil magistrate in
the marriage between anybody?
A. 1t was not permissible.
Q. Now, supposing for the sake of argu
ment, that one Of the parties to the marriage
was Catholic and the other non-Catholic,
would it then be permissible?
A. The reason would be stronger still why
a Catholic clergyman should not assist in
that case. A Catholic clergyman would not
assist.
Cross Examination--Q. Is it not fact that
priests and pastors in good standing in the
Catholic church do administer the marriage
rite to contracting parties when one is
Catholic and one is a n-Catholfc?
A. Yes. sir.
@. That is not uncommon?
A. Well, it is exceptional but 1t is case
that occurs frequently.
@. Would you say then, that it is contrary
to the discipline and doctrines of the church?
A. Well it is contrary in this way; that
mixed marriages are not encouraged. They
cipline of the church.
@. But if a Catholic priest or pastor does
administer the marriage ceremony, that mar
riage is recognized or looked upon as valid,
SO far as the church is concerned?
A. Yes, sir. First, the clergyman must
recognize that there is very good reason;
and secondly, he must obtain permission
from ecclesiastical authority to perform the
CEREMONY written dispensaton; then the
marriage is recognized by the church.
@. Is it or is it not permissible under the
rules and discipline of the Catholic church for
a clergyman, pastor or priest, to be present
as a witness at civil marriage by civil
officers Of the state?
A. No. sir; it is not permissible
@. That is where one is Catholic and the
other 1t a non-Catholic?
A. Well, the clergyman in that case per-
forms the ceremony himself: That Is what |
referred to a moment ago when l said he had
to obtain permission.
@. Assuming that an acquaintance or
neghbor of priest. clergyman or pastor was
parties was a Catholic and the other nom
Catholic; is it contrary to the rules and dis
cipline of the church that priest, pastor or
clergyman be present at that wedding simply
to attend it, If he takes no part in it?
A. There is nothing contrary to that 1t
would depend altogether on how the wedding
took place.
O. Explain what you mean.
A Well, in this 1 could assist at mar
riage between Catholic and a non-Catholic
only when permission had been received from
the church. and then that marriage would be
recognized by the church. Then 1 would be
perfectly justified in assisting at it. If the
would be violating the discipline of my Of
flee in assisting at a marriage of the kind, no
matter by whom performed. A Catholic
clergyman would not perform it.
O. Would you have any hesitation, or
would the discipline of the church prevent
you, not participating, but simply attending
a wedding as any other neighbor or friend at
tends a wedding?
A. Well if the marriage is performed by
a priest and the parties have acted according
to the requirements of the church, l would
feel no hesitancy.
O. But if YOU received an invitation to at
tend a wedding of that kind, not as a partici-
pant, not as an assistant but simply as
friendly spectator, would you refuse to attend
the wedding unless you knew there was dis
penSation granted?
A. Yes, sir: 1 should refuse
AT the conclusion OF FdInef Her
irons testimony Mr.. O'Brien called the
expert witnesses, already named, who
testified in substance as outlined.
N P. Langford, the last expert wit
ness, testified that the handwriting on
the certificate bore the peculiar char
acteristics of simulated handwriting.
Asked to define some of those charac-
teristics, Mr.. Langford said the back
handed writing was not that of per-
son who naturally wrote in that style.
This was evidence by the fact that 1t
was not continuous, some of the let
tiers slanting the other way. Moreover,
the letters and words occasionally ran
down over the line, which was another
suspicious circumstance peculiar to
limitations of back-handed writing.
Shortly after $3.50 p. M, court ad-
journed until this forenoon, when Mr..
O'Brien will place additional experts
on the stand Mr.. O'Brien said that
he expected to get all his testimony in
today. Mr.. Waters, it is understood,
has several witnesses to produce in re-
buttal.
The court room was crowded yester-
day, for the first time since the hearing
began.
LOOKS AS If 1T WE'RE EASY.