New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-12-16
naur,,,re7 Al had several

., Mr. Mo,Ineux's handwriting? Al had several
the number can't remember =, tho defendant,
did have n your or t RSssss.0n on
fS osAre not hfteen or twenty specimens OF an in
dividuals writing sufficient for you 10 i,fe is a
who is the writer? A.--Not when man ''e IL 9
oYou have said tina. found the t same char
acteristcs run through all '"ese
QThen some of these ;tt vow wni back
| led you away from the deiehoah' leu ~"
| him again? Ayes and no. ,.,. htcb AZ IN,
O-Weil didn't the characteristics whi len az ft Un
| time meant one thing TO you mean some uhhe ai'ei
ward lust the opposite to you? AENo. sur,,,rs
oDd you ever s!se that oTes dSnt remember
ODD YOU state in an hs eoso ona PACK
breaks in this address tE ~ me dssse? Al dom
| remember.
INTERVIEW AND TESTIMONY AT NAfiANOH
Counsel read the interview but Mr.. Kinsley
repeated that he had no remembrance OF saying
what appeared therein. The witness had tes'-
| fed in the course Of the week that breaks were
a normal pen characteristic Of Molineuxs Wit
ing. The witness next admitted writing TO T. b.
| How. Of Washington, on February d, COMBAT
inc tba Iatter,s contention that the address on
EXHIBIT A was Molineuxs work. Part OF this
letter read:
II YOU had a quantity of Mr.. Moneux's hand ,iid.
writing you would see that he starts with nt a
s snd Of % course that makes his habit and this
little stroke ba hn small ENLARGED
except in one case. The figures In the barmei
S be sfes n IN 'n all hs Barnet and
letters, and are not typical, neither 40 'heS ie
The characters &c" are vacatns in the Bar
and Cornish letters and more or less sNpa
in the MGnex Whiting .nd Ss &c That fH You POINT out
we don't find in this end Of the line at all T., vour
opinion on page i've OF morning newspaper the
'oi" tx" capital "R" and its relation to- capita a
graved in the newspaper. they would bear me out
IN saying that they prove Just the opposite in what
the rest of us to agree with you In this
Referring again. Mr.. Kinsley, to the letters
from b to X inclusive. did you receive all OF
II EN- from the same person.
NO" replied the expert.
Odd you return them all to one person? A
0-From whom did you receive them? A-Cap-
tain McClusky. Detective Cafferty or Detective
QEAnd you returned them to these persons? A
Q-on your second visit to osborpes house when
o2At his request? AYES.
did you know why he wanted yOu7 Al d.
o-Are you a mind reader7 Mot exactly;
If had reported to Captain McCusky that in my
opinion Mr.. Molneqx wrote p the address on the
Q-How long did you remain? A-About two
hours.
QIAnd did You then suggest the names Of the
You Consider s0 the ii Interviews of the
perts investigation? A.-somewhat
EXHIBIT NO. S
Q-What made you form an opinion after hav
ing "sdetracked' Mr.. Moneux?. A specimen
Of his handwriting No. rs.
the envelope in that exhibit to connect it with the
address on the poison package? A:nNo noo, :.
with the first envelope put in your hands on jan
uary /? Ayes sir
ship? .A.--Exhibit 2S was fully addressed and Elk
hbit 1.-the first envelope-was not written in full
had referred to the 'Ci' and the co. in the papers3
Al referring 10 what 1 had seen In the
dwell. now. what CHARACTERIZED the relation OF
ing not peculiar to other writing Of the defendant.
Dwell was there anything peculiar in this ex-
hS y the EXHIBITS TSs cS
9ed RGn b5 6a tS Sg Words ASO Your
Q.-Is the popularity In % in the word ''City" or
In the "Cf'? AIN the way the &c" and "i' are
Q.Is there anything in that to connect IT with
Q-Then you were not able, even when you got
Exhibit 2S, 10 connect 1t with a.? A.-That is
Q-Then you were only able to connect It to the
poison package through disputed handwriting?
A.-Partialy.
Mr.. Weeks asked the witness II he could give
any opinion as to the age Of the ink on the
poison package address. He thought It could
not have been more than two weeks old when he
received it, on January l. but would hazard no
opinion as TO how recently It had been written
before he it. He based his opinion as to the
age from the fresh. black appearance of the
ink. 1t had not changed materially since he
first received it. on January /, 1899.
Q-How do you know the ink was not FIVE years
old? A-Well, 1t had fresh, brilliant appearance.
Q-Could II not have been five years old and have
been as black as II is now? Ayes. 1t could It's
possible, but not at all probable.
Mr.. Weeks asked the witness to examine Ex-
hibit A and state If there was anything about it
that would indicate that the paper had ever been
wrapped around box or package The Court
thought that was hardly a question to ask an
expert in handwriting and allowed the witness
TO express his opinion IL he cared TO, but did not
compel him TO do So The witness said he had
no opinion to offer He had discussed the ques-
ton with others prior to the trial, and had eX-
pressed the opinion that ii had been wrapped
around package. His opinion based on a
break in the letter So in the abbreviation for
the word street" appearing as though string
had been put across the paper and the letter
So was made across the string binding the
package. The character Of the writing indicated
TO him. he said, that the package had been
give any opinion as to the probable or possible
size Of the package.
Mr. Weeks again drew from the witness the
admission that he was unable to satisfy himself
that Molineux wrote the poison address until
he had induced the defendant 10 write in the
vertical style for him. and that he had furnished
particular kind Of pens and paper for the writ
ing OF the specimens.
| The court adjourned until 1890 o'clock Mon
| day morning when Mr.. Weeks will continue his
| cross examination.
KINsLEY AND THE MASON CASE.