The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-01-06

men Of my fathers writing. This let
ter was written to me from st. Paul to
San Francisco by my cousin Miss Nan
Dineen."
Mr.. Hickey was then shown a letter
from Miss Dineen, dated Jan. 4, 1898,
containing in her own hand, as alleg-
ed, the names written on a separate
piece Of paper Of Daniel Hickey and
William Hickey.
The name Hickey, as SO witten by
her. and as alleged by Mr.. O'Brien,
corresponds accurately with the name
Hickey on the certificate of marriage.
The witness identified the writing Of
his cousin, Miss Dineen, now Of Chi
cago. In other words, the story is this:
Witness Daniel Hickey gave Waters
as specimen Of the writing of his
father, William Hickey, an envelope
addressed to himself by Miss Dineen,
now of Chicago.
But inasmuch as there was no proof
that Miss Dineen actually wrote the
name Hickey" Mr.. Bell objected to
further testimony, and the objection
was sustained. In consequence, Miss
Dineen has been sent for, and 1t is ex-
pected that she will come to st. Paul
to testify in the course Of two or three
days.
M. O'Brien claims that Waters used
the word Hickey on that envelope to
make the forgery of William H1ckey's
name on the marriage certificate, and
that Miss Dineen's handwriting was
copied instead Of Hickey's.
N. P. Langford. recalled by Mr..
OBrien, testified that in his opinion
the signature Of John Watson on
the certificate was not at all like the
admittedly genuine signatures of John
Watson.
N. K. Mulliken, the city treasurer's
bookkeeper, was Of the opinion that
none of the signatures on the alleged
marriage certificate were the same as
the signatures Of Father Bigot, Will
lam Hickey and John Watson that
were conceded to be genuine.
Mr.. O'Brien then took a letter from
his pocket and, handing it to Mr.. Null
liken, asked him If in his opinion the
hand that wrote and signed that let
ter was the same as the hand that
wrote the name John Watson on the
certificate. '--e
10 the surprise of the spectators Mr..
Mull1ken answered that it was the
same handwriting. Another surprise
succeeded when Mr.. O'Brien called
Joseph Waters, the claimant. to the
stand. Handing the same letter tn
Waters, Mr.. O'Brien inquired:
Did you write that letter."
did, answered the old man.
Mr. OBrien handed Waters a bust
ness card reading Joseph Waters
formerly Of Europe, veterinary sur,
geon."
rs that your card?"
L have no recollection"
Didn't you once give such a card
to superintendent Of Parks Nussbaum-
err" N ~'---
IT have no recol1ection
4. w. Porter, book dealer, was
next called, and was questioned con-
corning book written by Archbishon
Ireland entitled THE Church and
Modern Society" Waters testified
some days ago that he was soliciting
subscriptions for the book in 1892.
When was that book first publish
ed?" asked Mr.. O'Brien, of the book
dealer
In 1885," answered Mr. Porter.
Mr.. O'Brien then announced that he
would rest for the time being.
Mr.. Bell, in rebuttal, called Judge r
H. Wood. Judge Wood succeeded Bur
CESS as justice Of the peace in Ma,
1892, two months after the date of the
alleged marriage. Judge Wood testi.
fled that Mr.. Burgess INDUCED in
alcoholic liquors to excess, but that he
rarely wrote up his docket when I'M
Vel Inc lHhueHce VI liquor. SHOWN the
alleged certificate, Judge Wood said
that the handwriting was similar to
that Of the docket, yet it's general
character was different. The sigma
ture of the last name Burgess was like
that of the docket, but the initial let.
tiers F. and c. were entirely different
Judge Wood, in answer to Mr.
O'Brien, testified that when he took
Burgess office he found several print
ed blank forms Of marriage certificates
lying about.
Court adjourned here until 10 a. m
today.