The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-08-29
consider the reports Of Tho Judge The in

consider the reports Of tho judge, The in
| Cident IS closed.
| After brief suspense Of the session
of court, the court resumed hearing tos-
! timony, and NJ. Charavay, lrchlvist and
! expert in ancient manuscripts was called
to the witness bar. His deposition was so
! inaudihle that he had to be required to
! speal up.
I'm 1894" said NJ Charavay, 81 with
two colleagues. though acting Under sepa-
rate instructions, was commissioned to
examine the hordereau and number OF
documents for comparison, unsigned and
in different handwrilings. | examined FIRST
| the latter documents, ard by the process
of elimination fixed upon one resembling
| the bordereau ] was then furnished with
! specimens of the handwriting in question,
but was not told the name OF fho writer.
asked IL the document could be regarded
as genuine and was told the place whence
lit emanated which could not be men
toned by me and which could leave no
doubt in regard to its value. | make this
remark because / think it explains my
opinion. for ] could not consider docu-
ipent OF this nature which was not marked
by certain discrimination of handwriting.
| therefore attributed to discrimination
the differences / was careful to note in my
report.
Now must inform the court that in
view Of the fact that handwriting .ghicb
was not produced in 1894 and which is
evidently akin TO the handwriting of the
bordereau and the handwriting of ORGY
fus, has since been submitted to me, /
can not maintain with the same degree
OF certainty the conclusions Of my former
report and can only make &c state
ment namely, that those two handwritings
resemble the bordereau.
Il should however point cut one Of
the typical disslmlarities upon which |
lay stress between the two handwrtings
of the bordereau and the documents sub
mitted for comparisons, namely that the
double s. is not found between the bord-
ereau and the new handwriting. In other
words the double s. OF the bordereau Is
found In Esterhazy's handwriting,
After repeating the evidence he gave
before the court of cessation NJ. ChaNiyay
declared II was the new element. the
handwriting OF Esterhazy, which led him
TO declare he did not adhere to his con-
illusions in 1894
In conclusion. NJ. Charavay energetically
protested against General Mercier's ac-
cusations adding that what convinced him
that he had made a mistake in 1894. was
the publication of Esterhazy's letters. the
discovery of the Henry forgery, the In
quiry Of the court of cessation and Ester
hays confession. The conscience of tho
witness compelled him to say that In 1884
he was misled by similarity IN hand~rlt.
ing. at is great relief TO my conscience"
NJ. Charavay added, ito be able TO say be-
fore you and before him who is the victim
of my mistake. that the bordereau Is not
the work of Dreyfus. but of Esterhazy.'
An immense sensation was caused by
this statement Replying to Colonel Jou-
aust the witness said further examlna-
ton OF the bordereau and documents were
sufficient to convince him that the bord-
ereau was not written by Dreyfus.
The prlsoner on being asked the Gus
tomary question. requested NJ Charavay
10 give further particulars as 10 the reas-
ons which led him to modify his opinions
in regard TO the writer Of the bordereau,
whereupon the witness entered into
lengthy technical detail. He explained
how he found unmlstakeable resemblancees
between the bordereau and Esterhazy's
writing
NJ Pelletier. another expert. prefaced his
evidence by saying he scorned to make
definite statement on the subject In which
he was In disagreement with General Mer-
cier. The latter testified that the witness
refused 10 use certain documents submit
ted 10 him for comparison In common win
the other experts and said he had been
led to regard NJ. Pelletier's work with sus-
picion, because Of certain incidents IN