The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-09-30

l seven CT eight men were taking the OK aminations; that he. was walking froa one to another, giving instructions to th different applicants: that he did not kno1 that he had seen defendants writing he fore or after May l. 19s9 the date of th examination; that he would be able t l identify the writing of the other appli cants.
 Have you made comparison of the ox animation papers with any letters | reach your concluslon?" "I have compared letters. I don't bnoy that it was for that purpose. They wer shown me by AIr. Brooks" Did. you reach your conclusion tha you knew his handwriting from thi eomparison?'
 "l don't know that | did"
 You and MT. Brooks had a confer ence on letters, did you not?"
 Yes"
 "win you swear that you did or dit not say on the last trial that vol couldn't say whether you saw Nabor! slgn his name on the application?'
 J. s. Fowler Called
 "I can't say. because don't know what 1 swore on the last trial" The next witness for the state wal ]. s. Fowler, who was in 1909 employed by the Louisville and Nashville as 2 SptCidl dSchi. I1e tdl1e lo bli llihe, ham in August, 1910. His duty is the investigation of wreclls. and the pre- vention of theft of property
 Witness testified that he came hert to work on the Cunningham wreck tha he, accompanied by Sheriff Shipp 0 Morgan county and Special Agen Cecil, went to Nabors' house In Deca tur and got some stationery from thu defendants wife; that on the next da, he went back and got some keys iron the workshed in the back yard of Ma bors' house. He was handed buncl of keys and identified them as tn, ones he got when Cecil and Shipp were with him.
 No Search Warrant
 On cross examination MT. King asked the witness:
 Did you have search warrant?'
 No, sir"
 Have a warrant of any liind?"
 "Nos sir"
 Who suggested the trip to Majors house?"
 'I don't know. I didn't. think Cecl did
 Had you been in conference with sher if Shipp?'
 Yes"
 "Where?"
 ''At the Echols hotel
 Witness then described their methods and actions at Nabors house, on whcl he was questioned mnutely by Attorney King. They went into the hall and sal down. They remained about 10 minutes "Did Sheriff Shipp tell Mrs. Majors tha her husband was implicated in a wreck :? asked MT. King.
 ''No. Not that I heard.''
 "Mr. Fowler, did you testify at the "a trial that Sliror rnadp pn "a to Mrs Nabors?''
 T can't say whether I did or not
 You say this, knowing that he dit make statements, did you not?"
 T said he asked her for some sta tionery.''
 Nabors' Father Present
 Examined with reference to the visit tt the tool shop on the 18th of August, wit ness said Mir Majors, father of the de fendant. went with them--himself, Cecil and Shipp; that he found the keys anC turned them over to the sheriff: they wer fastened together with a cotton string or perhaps with wire he had neve seen the keys before that time
 Objections were sustained to MT. Allen'l questions on redirect examination as tt why witness went to the tool shop, wha tools they were looking for, and whethe they found a switch lamp in the shop.
 Afternoon Session
 The afternoon session was opened a ? o'clock with Charles l.. Hartman o' the stand. MT. HartmansSis an on gineer for the Louisville and Nash vile railroad and lield that position at the time of the wreck in December 1909
 Witness said he knew Majors. wht fired an engine for him; has seen hin write thinks he is familiar with hi handwriting He was shown repor of an accident and asked whether i was in the handwriting of the de fendant. Attorneys for the defense objected. MT. Morrow withdrew tn, report.
 Witness was not cross examined.
 James Wilkerson was next called fol the prosecution. Witness said he livet at Flint, Morgan county. He know. the defendant. who came to his hous, and introduced himself
 By what name did he introduce him self?" asked MH Morrow.
 Objection was made by the defens on the ground that the point was i'm material and irrelevant MT. Morrow argued that the state ex pected to prove that Nabors introduce, himself as Arthur Howard to witness and that circumstance was connected with the signature "A. H." to one 0 the letters received by MT. Brooks. H. offered in evidence the letter addressei to MT. Brooks stameA Montgomery Ala, Feb. 22, 1s1o," a signed "A. II.
 Letter Evidence Admitted
 The defense objected N the ground tina the letter was incompetent irrelevant, an, immaterial evidence, and that it had il no way been shown in this case to b.
 
 CT ground that it purported to be con fession of William Majors, whereas -th corpus delict has not yet been proved.
 The letter was read to Judge Weaver It was objected further by Attorney Good wyn that the letter had no bearing or the question at issue. The letter was al lowed by Judge Weaver to be read t the jury. Motion to exclude the letter wa made and overruled. The other letter to Superintendent Brooks was also introduced at this lime the same objection being made on thu | same grounds, being overruled by Judg' Weaver It was further objected that tp letter showed ensures and notations mad | by the writer of the letter and that 1 was written at a period pine or 10 month later than the offense charged. Motion tt rule out was overruled
 Introduced as Howard 1 The questo of the name by which de fendant introduced himself was re-state' to the witness and he said the nam Majors gave him was Arthur Howard. Witness said Majors told him on othe occasions his name was Arthur Howard. | Witness said the time he saw Nabor |. first was the last of Jabuary or the frs | of February, 1910. Testified in Other Trial | On cross examination witness said h | testified in the other trial of Nabor | that to the best of his judgment it wa