Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-03-06

held that the witness was put on, In re-
buttal
Mr. Cobb also directed attention to the
OF which q member OF the board Is presi-
dent. Mr.. Cobb said he had tried to get
bank tellers and had failed. and he thought
The hoard voted to admit the testimony,
and the defense noted an objection.
The defense also considered the advisa-
bility of withdrawing.
Witness stated that he had twenty years
experience In studying handwriting and
had testified In numerous prominent cases.
He gave his opinion that the admitted
letters and the uncertain one were written
by the same man.
On cFoss-examination witness said the let
tiers were shown to him several weeks ago
by Mr.. Cox. member of the board.
The defendant was then put on the stand,
and the cross-examination commenced.
Favorable to Montgomery.
Cardozo stated that he did not tell DR..
Montgomery he was favorable to his being
made permanent assistant superintendent
after that official had been made acting"
assistant superintendent. but that he was
favorable to DIR. Montgomery.
When did you criticise DR.. Montgomery
unfavorably?" Attorney Mcnamara asked
Witness told of an interview in August
last. in regard to changing certain "as-
signment lists" of teachers. and said he
had made suggestions as to what ought to
be done, and called certain facts to his SUI
perior's attention, but did what DR.. Mont
gomery told him. Witness said DR.. Mont
gomery was. very nervous, and for that
reason witness returned to see him the next
NOR ming and called certain matters to his
attention again. and DR.. Montgomery made
certain changes which the defendant sus-
gested.
Witness admitted there was another time
when he "commented'' on DR.. Montgomery
The testimony of the defendant in court
ref 70 Nc
Namara, and witness said he had then tes-
tilted that he may have criticised DIR.
Montgomery Mr.. Cobb said the court
had already passed on that evidence and
Mr.. Mcnamara had no right to call it up
Questioned by Board Members.
Cardozo was questioned by various mem
bers of the board. He added something to
his testimony in reply to questions, but did
not remember certain things called to his
attention.
Capt. Oyster asked whether Cardozo had
ever confessed that he lied on any occasion.
Witness denied that he had. Capt. Oyster
stated that on one occasion the defendant
had made such a statement to him.
Mr.. Cobb noted an objection to the re-
mark of Capt. Oyster, and stated that Capt.
Oyster had not testified to that fact when
in court last fall.
Thomas c. Leisenring. a newsdealer. was
called by the defense and shown a letter,
member of the board. He said DR.. Atwood
wished the letter made public.
Mr.. Richardson said Admiral Baird had
stated that DR.. Atwood had sent letter
in which he had not objected to proceeding
in his absence. Mr.. Richardson desired to
show, he said. that DR.. Atwood did not wish
the board to proceed and that second let
ter was suppressed.
DIR. Atwood signifying his willingness to
have the board proceed. ard admitted DR..
Atwood later withdrew this letter.
Wishes of DR.. Atwood.
A copy of the second letter. signed by DR..
Atwood, was offered in evidence by the de-
fense but its admission was objected to by
Attorney Mcnamara.
Capt. Oyster was in favor Of upholding
the objection, but Mrs. Mussey thought the
letter ought to go in evidence.
The matter was finally adjusted by max
ing the letter a part of the record of the
board
Rev DR.. Sterling Brown. pastor of the
Lincoln Memorial congregational Church.
was put on the stand by the defense and
testified that Cardozo was favorable to DR..
Montgomery as assistant superintendent In
the month of August last and also that the
reputation Of the defendant was of the
best
Attorney Eugene Brooks, referring to the
article in the Times, already mentioned,
the article Cardozo spoke in defense of DIR.
Montgomery.
Attorney Cobb then went on the stand
and stated that he took letter from Mr..
Davis-the one referred to by the defend
ant-to DIR. Chancellor and left it with DIR.
Chancellor's secretary. He told Of several
other incidents subsequent to the time he
was employed as Cardozo's counsel.
The attorneys for both sides then an
nounced that the evidence was all in.
About thirty minutes were devoted to a
discussion before it wars decided that the
arguments in the case would be heard at
1880 O'Clock Friday evening next.