The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-03-20
Mr.. MOORE ANGRY
Suddenly Terminated Introduction of
Testimony for Patrick.
THE STATE IN REBUTTAL.
Then the Attorneys Will Sum Up and
Case viii Go 10 the Jury.
THE EFFORT OF THE COUNSEL
Was TO Insinuate That the Recorder Had
Not Been Fair TO Him
LAWYERS FOR DEFENSE c0NflDENi
That They Have Made Out a Good Case
and viii Get a Verdict OF Not Guilty
for Their Client.
THE EFFORT OF THE COUNSEL
Was TO Iusinuate That the Recorder Had
Not Been Fair to Him
LAWYERS FOR DEFENSE cONflDENl
Cspecta, to rho post3

New York, March 10. How much good
faith there tx in the proclaimed reason for
the sudden resting of the defense in the
Patrick case must remain pretty much in
doubt II Is not believed tonight that the
defendant has lost the testimony OF many
witnesses who could help him and n none
who were important to his side Of the case
1t did not make good ending that which
occurred today, but It was intended nv
Mr. Moore that It should. It may make
fair proposition in the event Of an ap
comforting to Patrick II he considers that
anything has been left undone that could
help his case in Its present phase.
In the first place, IL is generally sd.
mltted by all not Immediately connected
with the defense that Mr.. Moore's grIev.
auces were not great enough 70 Justify him
in showing the anger and vindictlveness
that nc did in abruptly stopping his wit.
ness on the stand this morning and after
the noon recess announce that the defense
rested because though tho reason was not
Of course mentioned in court Of what hc
considered the unfairuess of the presiding
Judge. The recorder has horne great
deal from both prosecutor and attorneys
for the defense in this trial and the Incl
dent that caused a elimination OF the diff
tculty between him and Mr.. Moore To-Day
was trivial. IL may not be fair to say
positively. but It looked to many about the
court today RS II Mr.. Moore was looking
for some such event to take the step he
did on such small provocntion
The defense is confident tonight that The
prisoner viii be acquitted of the charg,
Of murder.
II was several days ago that tho tria
Of Patrick ceased to he a digpihod proceed
are and the dramatic that cuaraeterizcd /
when Jones v as on the stand has degen
Grated into the absurd when IL was no
wercly wrangle.
Osborne has several witnesses to prespn
il iebuttll and then tho closing address,
arc to he heard. There have been fey
cases where the last appeals Of the attol
rtys can have so much effect upon th
verdict rs in this one. Tho evidence a
presented by both sides is ragged in tn
extreme and how well MIR Moore and Mr.
Osborne can gather these together an
lay them clearly before the jury remain
10 be seen.
or course the possibility Of Patrick's NJ
pearance Oh the witness stand IL the d,
Tense had considered It was II was recel,
ing fair play will he dilatod mon by Moor
but he can hardly make this so stron
that ii viii be accepted by the Jury viii
ont that element Of doubt which It pc
sesses to the public.
David l.. short. ono Of the witnesses {
what is known as the 1900 will, was o
! the witness stand again today for eros
examination. Short told again of his Wis
| to Mr.. Rlcc's apartments on juno, 1901
Of Mr.. Rlcc's talk to him and Morris Mye
aud Of the signing and execution OF III
will Of Mr.. Rice. Short said that Ri,
| showed the will 10 him and TO Morris My,
aud then said: This is my last win.
/ want you 10 promise me not TO say
| word about this until after I am dead an
| gone"
"When did you first hear Patricks nan
mentioned in any Of the papers you wi
ncsscdF" asked Mr.. Osborne,
81 think the first time was on septer
her ~ when witnessed the assignment
Short said he heard Patricks name mo
toned in connection with the general a
sienment on September T.
II wax short who presented the "Albcrt
T. Patrick check for $4,000 to swenson
hank for certidcation Tc did rot kno
Hlce Was dead at that time. He did n
hear tho cashier az swenson'S say he d
not like the appearance o. the cheek
Charles French, handwriting expert
Boston. testified that he had made caref
studies OF the disputed signatures. namel
those to the 1900 willard the sssignmen
to Patrick had compared them with d
conceded signature. and that It was
belief that one baud wrote them all. T
defense closed its case this afternoon.
Assistant District Attorney Osborne III
called David T.. Short snd Morris Ny
In rebuttal. He asked them several gu,
tons relative 70 the kind OF Ink used
Rice In signing the win. the style OF pc
how many times Rice had dipped hi1 p
81 the ink, etc.
The witnesses were unable 10 give
osborne any dehnlte Information, both sa
ing they had not paid any attention
these facts
David NJ. Carvalho was then called as
expert to tell about the ink used on I
disputed signatures. He said the s
natures TO the 1900 viii were written
an ink the foundation OF which was
by-product or coal tar. The conceded $
natures. he said. were written With ir
ink.
At this polpt court was adjourned uu
tomorrow.