El Nuevo mexicano., 1916-06-01
N. 8. 4enInq On Stand

A 80 - @ANNA 49, a
Then tho third charge, which involv-
ed only Mr.. Marion, was considered,
II. b. Hening, editor of the Albuquer-
que Evening Herald, took the stand
and was questioned concerning the
visits paid his Office by Q. N. Marion
in August, 1916. He was asked about
the authorship of an article the cap
ton Of which was, Court Exonerates
Albuquerque Lawyers" He wrote
this article, he said, and it appeared
in the Herald August 9 of last year.
He had seen an article in the Sunday
Morning Journal Of Albuquerque Aug
ust s. He talked to Mr.. Marion when
he came into the Herald Office to see
about an advertisement and told Mr..
Marion, he said, that he intended to
print a summary of the article. Mr..
Marion suggested that the entire arti-
Gle be printed. II was a supplemental
opinion of the federal court involving
Marion and Wood.
Mr.. Hening said he had written the
lead" or Introduction, to the article
He was not aware that Mr.. Marion
had had anything to do with the writ
ing of this lead or with the head.
line. He said he did show a proof Of
two to five minutes examining it. MT.
Marion was in the Herald Office and
that Mr.. Marion probably had spent
two to five minute examining it. Mr..
Hening said he could not say whether
Mr.. Marion had read the article or
not; he had looked at it and suggest
ed that the name of the Judge at the
bottom of the opinion should be adj
ded. This name, Mr.. Hening said,
had been omitted from the article in
the Journal.
Mr.. Hening said that Mr.. Marron's
comment on the article was that 1t
was correct; he could not quote Mr..
Marron's exact words.
Asked by Judge Pope whether the
headlines we're on the proof shown
Mr.. Marion, Mr.. Hening said he could
not remember. Ordinarily they we're
not On galley proofs taken in the Her
aid Office, he added.
Expert Testifies
After q recess of a few minutes to
get Albert s. Osborne, a noted hand
writing expert, who was wanted for
the defense, DIR. Marshall D. Ewell, of
Chicago, took the stand to testify con-
corning documents. He was asked
concerning his qualifications and gave
a list Of degrees and membership in
various societies. He said he had test
flied as an expert in the following not
ed cases:
DR.. Cronin murder case, Chicago;
Davis will case, Butte, Mont; Section
80 case, Duluth, Mimi; Senator Nc
Donald will case, Indianapolis; Dolly
Reynolds murder case, New York;
Molineaux murder case, New York;
University OF Illinois VS.. Spalding, Chi
cago; Spencer will case, Oklahoma
City; United States VS.. Rowan, Mil
yankee; Gather anonymous letters,
Baltimore; Mace VS.. Beggs, Columbus,
Ohio; Women's Club anonymous let
ters, Chicago; McCaffery deed case.
Chicago; Tucker murder case, Boston;
Hartje divorce case, Pittsburg; United
State VS.. McCalmont, Cincinnati, o.;
VS., Bowler, Winnipeg; Estate
Of John Mcclellan, Sioux Falls, S. d.;
will case, Buffalo; Wat
kins VS.. Watkins, Helena, Mont. Uni
ted States VS.. Nelson, Salt Lake City:
Hewitt will case, Oswego, N. Y; State
VS.. Christensen, Oconto, Wis; Nc
Fire Insurance Investigation.
Regina, Sask., and many others.
The Cronin murder case involved
he microscopical identification of hair
and blood; Section 80 case and the Nc
Cafferty cast invoved the question of
chemical erasure Of handwriting; the
questions involved in the other cases
to the Identification of type
writing, anonymous letters, forged sig
natures, erasures, mechanical and
chemical, chemical and optical tests
ink, etc, etc.