Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1900-11-13

uncommon, as there were always some
variations. He admitted the POSSIBLE
ity of being mistaken in this instance.
Frank Won Schrader cashier of the
! Ottumwa Savings bank, was called as
an expert in handwriting, and his tes-
timony was quite similar to that Of
Mr.. Hutchinson. He said that in his
opinion the three signatures were
written by the same person. On
cross examination he said he was not
acquainted with Walter Davis sigma
ture. He admitted some dissimi.ari-
ties and pointed out the fact that the
signature of Walter Davis attached
to the application for the marriage
certificate was written more nervous.
ly than the others. He was examined
at some length on the style of the
letters and the termination of the
name, especially about the ter" in
Walter. On redirect examination he
said there were always indivlduali-
ties in handwriting.
Charles Connolly, of the City Saw
ings bank was called and examined
the signatures and gave it as his opin-
ion that they were all written by the
same person.
The Statement Admitted.
The statement of Davis to Detec.
tive Hardin, which was introduced in
evidence yesterday, and which ap.
pears in another part of this paper,
had been taken under advisement by
the court, who now ruled that it was
admissible, but he said that the oral
statements made by Davis would also
be taken as part of the statement
4 The Defense Opens.
4 At this point the prosecution rested
their case and the defense opened
with motion to dismiss the case
against Davis, alleging, first, that the
evidence of the state fails to make
out any oense triable by indictment
: Second, that it has not been disclosed
that there has been any crime com
mitted nor any sufficient identity OF
i the defendant with the alleged crime
: to hold him. Third, that If all the
, state claims has been committed by
J the defendant it is only misdemean
, or and not triable by indictment
, Fourth, the affidavits set out by the
state are not sufficient to base an &C
/. ton of perjury upon.
| On these points Mr.. Epps proceed
ed to make an argument, claiming
, that Davis had not committed an.
: crime wilfully, but had only testified
!, in signing the application that tn,
Z statements were made to the best o
l his knowledge and belief. The sec
! ton of the code on perjury was reat
l which provides for parties "wilfull.
S and corruptly" swearing, and he claim
ed that there was no evidence show
: ing this to be true.
Y The code provides for two penalties
i Where parties "wilfully and currupt
7, ly" swear to false statements the pun
1 ishment Is fixed for life Imprisonment
. or any term not less than ten years
9 in other cases the punishment is no
!, to exceed ten years Imprisonment
7 After the argument had been finish
;, ed Judge Hall dismissed the case O
] the ground of want of evidence t
l show that the defendant "wilfully an
: corruptly" committed perjury, as mel
8 toned in the statute. Judge Ha
!, stated that while Davis admitted
his certain confession to Hardin thu
J. he made the affidavit the court hel
y that this could only be used to corrol
iorate other witnesses, which the stat
q failed to produce toNshow that th
d oath was wilifully and corrupt
+ made. Deputy Clerk H. J. ing tie
titled that he could not say that h
8 had administered the oath to Waite
= Davis. 1t was. upon this testimon
II that Judge Hall dismissed the case.
L After the case of Davis had bee
r dismissed County Attorney A.
/ Enoch dismissed the case of suborn
II ton of perjury against John SEQ
% Wilkinson. He said that the lest
4 mony of the cases were identica
n This action will have the effect
n taking the case of Wilkinson from I'll
+ grand jury, unless! they can find ey
le dence to prove that Walter Davis, IL
N man who was on trial. was the aia
n to whom the oath was administers
by Deputy Clerk Wing.
y For the present the case is veile
e tot he public.