The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-01-30

called as a witness, who, it is claimed, per-
formed the marriage ceremony. 1t is true that
his evidence was to be received with the ut
most caution because of his established in
sanity. 1t was necessary to test his memory
of past events, and establish his competency
before he could testify under the statute.
The court ordered this DONE and after
careful examination became convinced that
the justice, while still laboring under de-
lusions, yet remembered past events with
great cearness. He testified that the GER
tificate forgery, nor did he remember
having performed the ceremony.
The most striking proof however, to the
mind of the court of the forgery, was the
alleged signature of William Hickey on the
marriage certificate. numerous genuine sigma
lures of whom had been discovered and were
introduced upon the trial for comparison.
These admittedly authentic signatures of Will
lam Hickey totally at variance with
the signature OIL claimants certificate that
the court, almost till the end of the trial, was
at loss to account for such a striking diff
ference. But, finally, it was established be-
yond doubt that the signature of William
Hickey on the marriage certificate fac
smile of the writing of the name Hickey by
a relative of the deceased William Hickey, of
a Miss Daneen OF Chicago, whose writing
was either Intentionally by mistake given
to the claimant as the writing of the de-
ceased William Hickey when the claimant
had requested a signature of William Hickey
for comparison. The conclusion was irresista-
BILE that William Hickey had never signed his
either the claimant, some other person.
believing Miss Daneen's writing of the name
of Hickey to be that of the deceased William
Hickey, did copy this signature as written
by Miss Daneen, and the name of William
Hickey in the marriage certificate is a good
imitation of Miss Daneen's writing of this
name. She was brought from Chicago, at
the request OF the court, and ordered to write
in court the names Hickey, William and
Thomas, and no doubt was left in the mind
of the court about the similarity of her writ
ing and that on the certificate.
This testimony of the experts and other
witness was sufficient to prove forgery, but
it did not stand alone to convince the court.
The testimony of the claimant himself and
his conduct the witness stand furnished
additional proofs. His testimony was devoid
of the semblance of truthfulness, absolutely
contradictory from day to day~and irrecon-
cilable, and only some of the most material
facts testified to by him were restated and
adhered to with any degree of accuracy. His
own story seemed so improbable, not to say
impossible, that the court could place no
credence in it.
There were some witnesses on the stand
who testified with apparent truthfullness to
admissions on the part of the deceased of
her marriage to the claimant but these adj
missions were made, If made at ALL in the
course OF conversations between witnesses
and the deceased which at best were vague
and casual and such admissions were too
general and vague to- be of weight. One of
these witnesses testified that Mrs. Mntzer
admitted to be married to Waters but
described him as an eX-poiceman, a char
acter well known in St. Paul at the time.
According to another Witness she claimed
to be married to Waters, her old book agent,
when the proof was that the claimant never
had been a book-agent and was not such at
the time of such conversation. but only be-
came such at much later period. The court
was thus not much impressed with that class
of testimony, when placed in opposition to
the testimony already adverted to.
There were many other facts in the case
brought to light during the trial, which
added their weight against the claimant such
as the fact, that there was record Of the
alleged marrige anywhere, as required by
law, and no return of such marriage either
by the justice or the Catholic priest who
was said to have assisted in the ceremony.
and the fact that under the rules of the
Catholic church Father~Bigot could not have
participated in this ceremony without violat-
ing his obligation towards that church, of
which he was distinguished member, a vio-
lation of duty hardly to be presumed.
Justice of the Peace Burgess, moreover,
always was known as methodical man, and
careful justice, and it seems highly improb-
able that he would have omitted the import
ant duty of making proper return if he had
performed the marriage ceremony.
Then 1t appeared from Mr.. Waters own
statements that he never even lived in to