New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-02-09
WITNESS TURNS TABLES
Valentine Calls WOman against
CounsePs AdUice-Erperts Testify.

The prosecution In the case or Ben1aihii r.
Valentine the lawyer indicted for forgery
closed yesterday with the evidence of David ~
Carvalho and William j. Kinsley. Handwriting
experts. who testified that the disputed signature
was hating and unlike that of Mrs. Valentine
whose signature is alleged to have been Forged
The defence opened with the address TO the jury
by T. NJ. Griffing, counsel for valentine Al'ei
the close of the address. on valentines INSIST
ence and against the evident wishes OF MS
counsel, Mrs Mary Storrs Haines, OF BROOKLYN
a cousin of Mrs. Valentine. whose signature Is
alleged to have been forged was called TO the
stand She identified her cousins signature in
various documents.
When the direct examination was finished W.
II. Rand, who is prosecuting the case for Dis
trict Attorney Coles. of Nassau County, showed
the disputed deed exhibit e." to the witness.
and asked her If the signature that of Mrs
Rand.
I'm my opinion it is not I should say 1t Is
not" she said
Several minor witnesses for the defence were
called and it became evident that Valentine
would not take the stand himself when an ad-
iournment was taken until this morning, Will
lam E. Dennis, a Brooklyn handwriting expert
was on the stande He will continue to-day.
David N Carvalho. the handwriting expert.
was upon the stand when Judge Watson NJ.
Rogers opened the court at o'clock. and Mr..
Griffing continued the cross examination which
had been interrupted by the adjournment over
night Carvalho testified that some Of the let
tiers in the disputed signature, all of which had
been made with extreme care showed more
strokes of the pen than were usually made hy
Mrs. Valentine in signing her name The cap
ital M for instance. had a distinct break he
said, in the first shaft. The pen. after making
the beginning of the shaft had left the paper
hod he Dac
that the end of that stroke met the end OF the
first stroke, a method never followed by Mrs.
Valentine in writing, according to the witness.
Mr. Carvalho said. in response to questions,
that he had received $50 a day from district
attorneys in this State for expert work and
testimony. Efforts to discredit his testimony by
showing errors made by him caused him to re-
mark: II am not infallible; just an ordinary
human being" That remark was made after
Mr.. Griffing had shown by Mr.. Carvalho that
his testimony in California in December in the
Davidson codicil case, involving S3,OO0,OOO, had
been proved erroneous by William ]. Kinsley,
who gave evidence on the other side. Mr.. Crit
fling referred to a book written by Daniel T.
AInes, in which Carvalho is said to have been
severely used, and quoted from the pages: AN
alleged expert poses as the expert OF the District
Attorneys office" Mr.. Rand stopped the read
ing. then Carvalho was asked:
rs Daniel T. Ames distinguished expert?''
He is extinguished one" said the Witness
and Justice Rogers had to silence the laughter
William j. Kinsley, the last witness for the
prosecution, agreed completely in his testi-
mony with that of Carvalho. save that he gave
evidence. part of the time. along different lines
from those covered by the other expert. He
expressed his firm conviction that the name of
Marie A Valentine upon the disputed deed was
not written by Mrs. Valentine
A bV he To
departures noticed in the alleged forged sig
nature from well established characteristics
round in the admitted signatures of Mrs. Val
entlne. He drew attention to the erasure from
the deed of the flourish of the final "e" of the
word Valentine, and said that part Of the flour
ish had been erased and an effort made TO re-
draw the letter. kinsley described Mrs. Val
enttne's handwriting cool, easy, established
writing, while that of the disputed signature he
characterized as cold. formal hesitating writ
ing' more like drawing than writing There is
shown in the disputed signature a hesitation
an apparent pause at intervals Those pauses
indicate hesitation on the part of the writer
where to go next with the pen" said Kinsley
DO the photographs show the erasure of the
hnal e ~ was asked of the witness
Not the Peoples pilot Ographs, but those Of
the defence do was the response. The de-
fences photographs of the signature are believed
to have been made within the last two weeks
L assume volunteered the witness, that
some one noticed the dssmarity between the
ending OF the e in the genuine and the dis
puted writings, and made the change
You have testified in cases where you were
mistaken" asked Mr.. Griffng.
only once and then l discovered the error
myself and corrected it, replied the witness
Before making his opening address to the
jury, Mr. Griffng renewed his motion for dis
mlssai upon the ground that the Indictment
named no statutory crime, there being no such
crime as uttering forged deed; and for the
additional reason that the indictment failed to
show how when and where the alleged forged
denied. ~
Frn