The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-01-06
MARCUS e. ANDERSON, AN EXPERT,
ON THE WATERS MARRIAGE
CERTIFICATE.
DEMONSTRATES HIS BELIEF.
no QUESTION IN HIS MIND THAT
THE DOCUMENT Is NOT GEN.
UINE.
John wATsoN's SIGNATURE.
His Son Thinks 1t Is Genutnc-MOre
Sensational Testimony
Given.

Cashier Marcus e. Anderson, Of the
st. Paul National bank, an expert on
handwriting, took the stand in the
probate court yesterday, and, under
oath, declared 1t to be his opinion that
the document purporting to be the mar
rage certificate Of Joseph Waters and
the late Mrs Anna Mintzer Is rank
foil gerry. After giving this testimony
Mr.. Anderson, with the aid Of a black
beard and a piece Of chalk, proceeded
to demonstrate that his assertion was
true So clumsy a forgery did MI.
Anderson consider 1t that he volun-
teered the remark that If he had a
clerk who would cash a check for IS
on such a signature as that purport-
ing to be written by the late William
Hickey he would let the clerk out on
the spot.
The first witness called in the fore
noon was Sidney Watson, the son Of
John Watson, whose name Is signed
to the certificate as the third witness.
Mr. Watson testified that his mother
was dead and that her estate had been
prCbated. He was shown probate files
containing the signature Of John Wat
son, one of the witnesses Of the will,
and identified it as the signature Of his
father He was shown files in the es-
tate of George Watson, deceased,
which also contained the signature Of
his father He thought the signature
was that Of his father. The same sig
nature was also found In the probate
files of the estate Of Robert Watson.
Marcus E. Anderson, cashier of the
st. Paul National bank, was called. He
had been In the banking business for
twenty-five years, and had often been
called upon to examine handwritings
and make comparisons for the purpose
Of testing their authenticity. His at
tention was called to the signatures of
William Hickey, J. B. Bigot, Justice
Burgess and John Watson, as they ap-
peared on the marriage certificate, and
on the authenticated records. The
docket of the justice was also shown
him. He said:
There is no question in my mind
that this certificate is tot the genuine
work Of the party who wrote the
docket. The signature was also in a
simulated hand. The whole thing says
to me this is not genuine, or this Is
not genuine. The question always
with him: Would he pay out money
on such signature as that?' and in
this case he knew that he would not
30 pay out money on such a sigma
ture as the one called to his atten-
ton"
Mr.. Anderson then took a small
blackboard and demonstrated certain
discrepancies and tricks Gas alleged
which told the tale Of forgery.
The examination occupied some
time, and was in great detail
In the afternoon Daniel Hickey, the
son of the late William Hickey, whose
name heads the witnesses, took the
stand. In response TO Mr.. O'Brien, Mr.
Hickey gave the following sensational
testimony:
Some time last spring had a talk
with Mr.Waters about the handwriting
of my father, William Hickey. He
asked me for specimens of the writing
Of my father. l told him / would look
up some. One night / picked up ar
enyelone. which I gave him as speci-