The record-union., 1897-10-01
QUESTION OF HANDWRITING.
A PECULIAR CASE DECIDED By
JUDGE HART.
Cotter Denied That He Had Ever
Signed the Note Homer Sold
to Heisen.

Judge Hart yesterday rendered de-
cision in the case Of Heisen VS.. Cotter,
that presents some unusual points, and
is interesting on account of the circum-
stances. The decision is as follows and
explains itself:
In the Superior Court, in and for the
County of Sacramento, State of Cali
fornit-Charles Heisen, plaintiff, VS..
William Cotter, defendant.
This is an appeal from the Justices
Court of Sacramento Township upon
questions of both law and fact and,
therefore, the action was tried de novo
in this court The plaintiff sued upon
a promissory note, for the sum Of
$50 with interest, alleged to have been
executed by the defendant to one W. j.
Homer, who assigned said note to the
said plaintiff. Judgment was given in
the lower court for the plaintiff.
The defendant denied, both in his
answer and evidence, the execution by
him of said note claiming that his
name thereto was forged. In support
of this contention, in addition to his
own testimony denying in toto ever
having executed such a note as the
OIlE ulSDules llE QClClAuSAIAl 1lAAl CNAaN~N
some expert testimony to show that the
signature attached to said note was not
in his handwriting. Frank Miller,
manager of the National Bank Of D. O..
Mills & Co., having given testimnOy to
the effect that his experience in the
matter of comparing signatures had
been such as to render his opinion,
upon such matters, of considerable val
ue, examined the note in dispute and
compared the signature thereto with
that of the defendant upon other notes
which the latter admitted to be genuine,
and, afer a careful examination and
comparison, gave it as his opinion that
the note did not possess the genuine
signature of the defendant. In other
words, it was Mr.. Miller's opinion that
the same party did not write the name
upon the note in dispute that wrote the
same name upon other instruments
which were offered in evidence and to
which Mr.. Cotter admitted having affix-
ed his signature A S. Greenlaw.
County Treasurer of this county, with
which office he has been connected.
more or less, for a number Of years, eX-
pressed a doubt as to whether the sig
nature to the disputed note and the one
to a note which defendant admitted
having signed were written by the
same person. He testified, however,
that it was not impossible that the
two signatures were written by the
same person, and such might have been
the fact c. E. Burnham, assistant
cashier of the California State Bank,
whose duties are such as that he has
necessarily had to study signatures
with view Of protecting his bank
from imposition and fraud, also ex-
pressed the opinion that the person
who wrote the admittedly genuine sig
nature did not write the disputed one.
On the other hand, E. S. Wachhorst,
who has been a deputy in the County
Clerks office for number of years, r.
T. Cohn, the County Auditor, who has
been in that office in various capacities
for some twelve or fifteen years. and B.
3. Brown, who has been a cashier in
a saleshouse and also at the head of n
hotel where he has frequently had oc-
casion to cash checks, and who served
as an expert for the Grand Jury of this
county on several occasions, each gave
it as his opinion that the signature to