The Butte inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1901-1912, 1902-06-27

writer who wrote the "a in one name made
it in the other!" the attorney general said.
Attorneys Have a Squabble.
Mr.. Smith raised the objection that this
was not direct re-examination, for the
reason that no such question had to be
asked OH ross-examination and the court
would not let the witness answer it. After
that there was a long wranglc over the 'er'
in Colbert in one signature, and the ar
in Charles in the otner.
it took about IS minutes to straightcn
out the tangle OF opinion as to whether
Mr.. Smith asked question relative to the
or in one signature and the ar in the
other, or to the ar in one and the 'er' in
the other. The tangle was untanglcd bun
the momentous question was not decided.
The lawyers talked and argued, and ex-
planned and objected and differed, and
finally got tired and gave the matter up.
Next the loop between the e and the r.
In Colbert was put on the frying pan and
roasted awhile. Mr.. Donovan wanted to
know whether or not the loop in the word
in the undisputed signature had even
bowling acquaintance with the loop in the
word in the will signature. After objec-
tions, which were overruled, the witness
answered:
"The connecting line is different In one
signature from the line in the other. II
goes below the line in one instance and
keeps above il in the other"
"I'1l ask you what difference there is
between the last three letters in Colbert
In these genuine signatures, and the same
letters in the same word in the will sigma
ture !" Mr.. Donovan said.
~ s.b -. -. ~,
will signature. 1t Is not broken in the
others" Mr.. Scaver answered.
Z "Do you find any similarity in the up
stroke in the Z or not?"
e "Thcre is slight similarity, but not
much"
Two questions were turned down by the
court as leading and improper and Ahor-
hcy Roote one of Mr.. Smiths colleagues,
commented that the witness knew what
Mr.. Donovan wanted and would answer
accordingly when led. The court admon-
ishc1 Mr. Roote to forego such remarks.
Not the Least Resemblance.
Mr. Donovan handed the witness an in
strument in which there was a true sigma
ture of Colbert's that somewhat rcsembled
the will signature. Concerning that true
signature the Yitncss said:
= "I'll say that the connecting line be-
tween the "a and the r. in the genuine
signature differs entirely from the con-
meeting line between the "a and the r in
the will signature. The genuine signature
] have in my hand is the only genuine
signature in which that line in the least
Resembles the same line in the will sigma
ture.
3 Mr.. Donovan tried dozen questions
for the purpose of bringing out an answer
from the expert that the signature that
tcsembled the will signature was abnor-
NAL, but they were all stopped by objec-
tions to their proprety. Finally he was
permitted to ask the witness il the sigma
ture was uniform, and Seaver replied that
II was not normal.
Mr.. Smith and Mr.. Donovan wranglcd
over just what question it was that Mr..
Smith had put to the witness in cross
examination about the s. in the word
Charles and Mr.. Smith said in the course
OF his remarks that Mr.. Donovan must
have been asleep when the question was
asked. Eventually the stenographcr was
allowed to read the question Mr. Donovan
had just asked the witness covering the
matter.
4. A Comprehensive Query
I 1t was a beautiful question, containing
about 40 clauses and 500 words, and when
II was read the court said; That's about
as clear as mud It's like the Dutchman's
road, sprngly sprang. You'd get lost on
it. Well, you can answer it if you cam
Then there was great laugh. But the
expert was equal to the task set him, and
he promptly answered that the SIS" in the
genuine and he will signatures were quite
different.
Adolph Wetzstein qualified against the
objection of the proponents counsel as an
expert on Colbert's signature, and he was
examined at length.