New-York tribune., 1903-07-30
DEED HELD SPURIOUS
Continued from first page.

istics OF that signature were almost whole ,,.,
ing.
The decision continues:
While it is possible by examination %
number Of genuine signatures. extendfng -
long period OF time, to discover in -
cases an absence or modification OF one or -
OF those characteristics it is wholly improb,s,
that in one signature there should occur An -
sence or modification OF nearly all those cha.
teristics.
The testimony of the handwriting expert u
Carvalho. who has eoncededly had great expa-
ence in his profession. Is entitled to weigh,
After an examination and comparison OF n.
signature in question with genuine signaturs,
he pronounced the signature spurious withor.
hesitation or qualification. The testimony !.
Mr. Townsend. the paying teller Of the Brookh,
Trust Company. is quite as convincing as "a.
testimony OF Mr. Carvalho. Mrs. VaIenti,,
kept her bank account in the trust compan~
for many years. and he was accustomed to pav
ing her checks. and he says that he would N,
pay check upon the signature in question, ana
is equally emphatic with Mr.. Carvalho in hi,
opinion that the signature in question IL m.
genuine
It is a fact entitled to some weight upon thiz
issue that no expert was produced to testify IN
the genuineness OF the disputed signature. al.
though it appeared that defendants attorney
was in consultation with an expert during ths
progress Of the trial. presumably for the purpose
Of procuring such testimony. There Is other evf-
dence in the case which is strongly cOnfrmatorv
Of the spuriOusness OF the deed in question Tia
defendant Is the mother OF defendants atIOrney
She is q woman over ninaty years OF age De-
fendant's attorney has power or attorney by
virtue OF which he has absolutely controlled hs
mothers real and personal estate for at Ieasr
thirty years y conveyance TO his mother IL
for all practical purposes. conveyance 70 him
He has always had control OF the deed in Dues
ton. The deed puTpOrts TO be executed May .
1898: II was recorded June p. 1860 By deed
dated November 2. 1897. Mrs Marie A Valsn-
tine conveyed TO Samuel p. Hlnckey, for The
consideration OF 81. loo. a portion OF the prem
ises which pUrported 10 have been COaVeyed
by her to the defendant by deed IN question. L
is not reasonable to believe that she would cnu-
vey by full covenant warranty deed land sts
had previously conveyed to her nlOther-in-lsE
and lands to which she had no title After ths
death OF Mrs Valentine, defendants attorney. IN
a suit sgaiust him Tor an accounting OF his Wifes
estate was charged with the receipt Of the ST. 100
consideration for the Hinckley deed as agent for
his wife II a genuine deed for the property to
his mother the defendant, had been in existence
at the time OF the execution OF the Hinckley
deed. it's production upon the accounting would
have been a perfect defence 10 this charge Of
s.. 100 against him No such deed was then
produced. In the suit Of the children OF de-
fendant's attorney against him concerning the
same Cedarhurst property. tried in this court
and decided in favor OF the plaintiffs, and the
decision recently affirmed by the Appellate d.
vision, the production of a genuine deed 70 the
defendant executed before the death OF Marie A.
Valentine would also have been a perfect de-
fence 70 the action No such deed was then pro
duced.
Upon the whole case, for the reasons stated I
am convinced that the deed IS spurious and that
the signature there is not the genuine Of Marie
A. Valentine. and IT follows that the plaintiffs
are entitled to Judgment for the relief demandss
In their complaint. with costs