Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1919-03-27
ENDEAvOR|NG TO
|MPEACH EASTMAN
Where Respondent Was on May
S, 1917, Seems an Important
and Disputed Fact in Case

Rutland, March 26-More evidence
having direct bearing on the claim OF
the prosecution that George p. East
man of this city testified falsely in a
civil case between him and the YER
mont Marble company which was
heard by chancellor Frank l.. Fish of
Vergennes in 1917, appeared in the
Eastman perjury case in Rutland
county court to-day when Edward H.
Richard of New York, whom Eastman
named in the previous trial as a long
time friend of the respondent, was call
ed to the witness stand by the state.
Eastman had testified that on May S,
1917. two days before the alleged spur
ious document which appears in the
present case was produced he stayed
with the Richards at Morris Heights, a
part of New York, and that he had
been there off and on for some time.
transcript of this testimony of East
man was read to the jury in the pres
ent trial.
Mr.. Richard stated to-day that East
man was not at his house on May 5,
1917 and had not been there for some
weeks previous to that. 1t developed
later that Mr.. Richard was at a hospit-
al for 10 days the time including May
5. Eastman had testified that he ate
dinner with the Richards on the day
in question.
Mr.. Richard was asked as to whether
w. II. Dunn and Attorney Homer
Skeels of Ludlow called upon him dur
ing the progress of the earlier trial
by Judge Fish, during which East
man tried to introduce as evidence a
boundary line agreement. now claimed to
he a forgery. lie stated that they did.
but he was not permitted to tell what
they said to him.
II. r. Jackson of the Spencerian Pen
company. which bought out Iverson
Brakeman e. Co.. pen and ink dealers.
testified that certain ink which the
State found in Eastman's possession had
not been on the market since 1890, which
the prosecution claims tends to estab-
| fish that Eastman was dabbling with
old inks during several months prior
to the time when Ernest Fl. OBrien
claimed to have discovered among papers
| Of the late Attorney Joel c. Baker a
marble quarrying contract, dated July,
| 1892, which the State is endeavoring to
prove a fraud. The contention of Attor-
| ney-General f. C. Archibald of Man
chester is that Eastman committed per-
jury to hide the fact that he met Mr.
O'Brien at Albany. NJ Y. the day before
| the disputed document appeared in the
Vermont Marble company Eastman civil
| case.
| Albert S. Osborn of New York, a noted
handwriting expert. who was called to
I the witness stand by the State Tuesday.
continued to testify during the greater
part of to-day. Continuing in his conten.
ton that the Eastman agreement is for
gerry. he explained to the jury bit by bit,
| using engagements of signatures and Of
certain words how inks differed, how va =
rious lines showed retouching or hesta-
ton such as is not noticeable when man
is dashing off his name He claimed that
| signatures on the paper were made by
| tracing and showed how the lines in the
writing exactly matched when a sample
admitted as a standard was placed over
the same word on the disputed paper.
Mr.. Osborne testified that It would be
impossible for a person to write free
| handed anything which would exactly
match something previously written.
Hammond typewriter catalogues of an
early date were admitted into the case to-
day as evidence for the prosecution. They
show that no master wheel for Ham
mond machine using type which matched
that of the Eastman document. claimed to
have been written in 1899. was offered for
sale in the catalogue until 1898.