The Saint Paul globe., 1900-10-19
FOR FORGING RICE 3 MINE
POLICE COURT. HEARING OF PAT
RICK AND JONES Is
CONTINUED
HANDWRITING EXPERTS TALK
Prosecutor building Up "a Strong
Case Against the Genuineness
of the Purported Sigma
lures of Two Checks,

NEW YORK, Oct 1S-Preliminary pro-
ceedtngs in the Rice case were res,,T,e,,
To-Day before Magistrate Brann The ac-
cused are Albert T. Patrick and Charles
f. Jones. The former was counsel of tha
late William M. Rice and the la tier wa
Rlce $ secretary and valet The charge
Is. forging the name of William Nj. Rice
to check for $25 Geo drawn in Patrick $
favor on the banking house Of Swenson
and Sons of this city
Walter o, Wetherbee, who was on The
stand yesterday was cross-examinefi bv
the defense. He said the appointment
between himself and Jones, for the meet
ing was made by telephone. january 3
last, Jones then unfolded his scheme
10 get up a will dtsposing of the prom
erty Witness said the object OF his
visit to Rice in January, 1900 was TO get
loan OF S1,000 to take up a debt on
property held by witness in Texas. but he
did not succeed.
1t was brought out that Wetherbee' :
hrst meeting with Jones, after Jones
proposition was in February this year,
the meeting witness said, occurred Iii the
nail of the bank; that ne, witness, met
MI MiddleWeod last March. and after
telling Middlewood of Jones proposition
witness prepared the affidavit relating to
the proposition and swore to it March 81
before a notary. Asked why he did this.
witness replied that he was apprehensiye
that Jones might repeat the conversation
: winch ne and witness had about the will
proposed by Jones' The witness said he
wanted to be prepared for Jones He
had no intention of showing the affida
Wit to Rice. Wetherbee identified the
$z5,o00 check as that which was broughy
into the office by John Wallace with com
parison with cancelled checks of Rice.
He would not swear that the So, 900 check
was not signed by Rice, but in his best
opinion it was not.
James a. Baker, jr. the next witness,
he was Rice's private counsel for 1S years.
In his judgment the signatures of the
checks-two of which he secured from
Patrick, one for $4,000 and the other for
S65,G0O, were not those of William NJ.
Rice.
William j. Kinsley, the first hand writ
ing expert witness for the prosecution.
was not called He said the signatures
to the checks for S25, 900 and $50 900 were
not written by the same hand that wrote
the sigma lures on the standards Of com
parfson submitted to him.
David NJ Carvalho the next expert
witness, declared that the signatures to
the disputed checks for $25, ,0C0 and $65.G00
are forgeries. Mr.. Carvalho said In reply
to Mr.. Grossnlan, of counsel for the ac-
cused, that the forgeries were the work
an an unskilled forger. He thought that
after the tracings had been filed in, bread
was used over the dry ink TO efface the
tracing marks. In the initial letter of
the signature in the So, 900 check, the wit
ness testified he had found strong and
unmistakable evidence of dry Zen
tracings. The formation of the charac-
ters of this check, he said, as eornpa red
with those in the $25, 900 c1ieC.--- 5ere ~ le-
ly different. The witness, in reply TO an
other question, said he had examined the
checks drawn on the Fifth avenue trust
company and pronounced them forgeries
In other respects he corroborated the
testimony given by the preceding wit
ness.
morning