The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-12-09

was in.i.tins tina. expert tssti%pony On hand nd
Dispute; IN other words. the main writing. Oh,
TRs Rscod.S s,SeS R% what in f ss o lss
| was the writing In dispute 10 the present case
ses the wrtins that Would Be the ess " sf f
ip dispute was the writing that appeared on
%:ss s s.y =; that ssF se4:
client, and We propose to present that writing
ss@ 1 as S'V The hsnd%sitsS in dispute here
The Interpretation that vss put upon thi,,
wr ss s Se MT You'd E. ssG ss eqoSs Sy
package o. poison. to Cornish. MI. Weeks
himself made no further statement on this
AZ ,Ss siSss 3, " AR s5syn.v, n. so;esns
and IN slated chat Il supported hs contention
Con decided that he would permit MI Kinsley
them. not with each other. but with the SAM
plcs Of handwriting known as Exhibit 4, which
Ws,n@ sn Tbe Reeordsrs deeison w Was s aim sst
lengthy as had been Mr.. Week speech. He read
large portions OF IL from a typewritten doou-
prepared in advance Of the presentation Of the
case The explanation Of I, probably e that
preSioa" days. ana was s'e one es sRat " Wss
bound 70 come up. 50 Il had been possible. to
look upthelaw In advance. After the decision
Klnsey:, Have you compared each Of these
sapSs,s IT. RR 1t IN. d'f'nd'n'
=. And a yhat is your opinion from that COM
- II II my opinion that the hand tina, wrote
the standard handwriting that | have wrots
All OF the original writing In the exhibits that
PRISONERS FATHER NOT IN COURT.
rAS Nka ar.N tt..,. .tA ~ All. III
began. Gen. Moineux was not in the court
room when court convened for the afternoon
Sn Ths d: nS - "a 6efds his
In the absence OF his father Moiineux amused
himself reading the evening newspapers. Mr..
sane ot Of e,hss aqd nd he
over agap the same Questions that he
Weeks objected. The Recorder overruled the
objection and again refused to permit the
Weeks said that under section 80 OF the Code
Of Civil PTocednss i was his right 20 have on
which they were based. The Recorder leaned
over to the stepoerapher anil said: The
except TO the refusal TO permit US to"
eorsr S stTs kali all ss sr 4ses h Ro
~ II except except to the Recorders remarks." said
Strike il ont. sald tho Recorder. And ther
to Mr.. Osborne. You. may proceed"
Mr.. Weeks subsidized. Mr.. Kinslcy. In answer
Ss, hs SSs sal" E.S Sr thu the
that he knew the defendant and had seen him
write many time. and many things, aud then
you hold IN y9ar hand ni me dstendants haul
exhibits and asked Mr.. Kinsley to compare
them with the exhibits that he held In his hand
md say wheu6er or not they were in the same
Writing. and the Recorder would not permit .a
ht Mr. osone toa the the Re@o,s
that the papers that he exhibited tore internal
evidence that they were written by Moiipeux.
that MollnepI had hirei private letter box
mentioned in the Cornish ana Barnet letters.
until he had compared the three new exhif ts
wit the standard OF Molineux's handwriting,
and he directed the stenogapher to cut out OF
male either BY Mr. T ssus or %r B aStTs pe'
marking that II they got in It would require
Court II the case ever reached that court.
NEW BONE OF CONTENTION.
. The next exhibit that came up was Exhibit
j. already 10 evidence a. u specimen of hand
all. for the reason that II had been alleged TO
contaiB a rhysicai de-criptio1 that would At
Gny R2 bH .bs D. IL was blank
this company he gets one OF Its blanks which
contain Atty or more questions. and no " sup
posed to answer these questions. whereupon
the proper sort OF medicine IL sent 10 him
There was a great fight over Mr.. Osbornes
proposition to put this parer In evidence. Mr.
Osborne. said: Il will show that the
description givon In this paper Is n per-
sonal description Of the defendant in
this case" Mr.. Weeks warned the Recorder
Z nat under no circumstances should the paper
be permitted to get to the Jury. because. II II
90. any damage that Il might do would be OF
the KIND that could not be cured by any suisse
Quent direction OF the Recorder to disregard
the contents " the paper. Mr.. Osborne In
sisted that he had proved that the, same man
those letters. were on the same subject as this
letter to The Mnrston Remedy COMPANY. He had
further proved 10y Kinsley that II was Mol
ineux who wrote the Rarnet and the Cornish
letters. and he insisted that he had
right TO corroborate the evidence OF his
expert. by putting in evidence this
letter written by Molineux. because
its contents. being q physical description
OF NolineuI proved absolutely that Molineux
wrote II. Before Recorder Goff had made any