The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-06-24


prosecution yesterday was David N.
Carvalho. the veteran handwriting ex-
pert, who was called to testify as 10 a
will. dated in October. 1915, which in the
view of the prosecution supplies a motive
for the defendant TO have desired his
wife's death.
At the time OF her murder he stated
that her death left him penniless. since
q will drawn before she married him left
everything to charity. But some days
after the murder he produced the will
which was considered yesterday. In II
Mrs. wilkins made ample provision for
him. but the will was without an attesta-
ton clause. and was therefore on its face
valueiess as a. testamentary instrument.
In his address to the jury at the open
ing of the case Mr.. Weeks said that he
would show that DR.. Wilkins's state
ment that he knew of no will later than
the one his wife executed before she
married him was not a truthful state
ment. and 1t was by Mr.. Carvalho yester-
day that he proposed to redeem this
promise.
When Mr.. Carvalho was called there
was some expectation OF n sensation ir
the court room. for word had got around
that he would testify that Mrs Wilkins
signature was a forgery. All he swort
| to, however. was that the date at the
bottom OF the will was In DR.. Wilkins's
handwriting This handwriting IL al
va rance with the doctors alleged state
ment that he knew nothing about the
will having ever been executed.
Mr.. Carvalho testified readily enough
| that the signature to the will had beer
written by Miss Wilkins. His cross
examination was brief, and was largcl.
as to the reliability Of his opinionativ'
testimony. He was quite as willing Il
| admit that handwriting experts made
| mistakes as he was to answer anything
else that was asked him. He said III
! had testified in more than 1000 cases
and that in practically all OF these hi
opinion had been opposed by the opinions
OF other experts.
DR.. schultze Tells of Fees.
| With DR.. Otto H. Schultze, med!ca
expert, cross-examination devoted II
self largely to a question OF the com
pensation that he received. He testified
that he received $3.50 for performing
an autopsy on Mrs Wilklns's body,
Ike amount for testifying as a witnes
and SIS an hour for laboratory work.
| In his direct testimony yesterday h
said that, in his opinion. the blood foun'
on DR.. wilkins's clothing after the muir
der had struck with force from newl
opened arteries. DR.. wilkins has sal
1t came there from his own hands afte
he had rendered first aid to his wife
Allen Meyers. chief operative for tn
Burns detective agency in this region
was a witness for about four hours HI
testimony was largely corroborative o
testimony already heard. Among tn
various things he swore to was the find
ing of sums OF money and watches an
other jewelry in different places abou
DR.. Wilkins's house after having pre-
viously searched the same places thor
oughly. The Inference was that d,
wilkins planted" the objects wher
they were found.
Part OF DR.. Wilkins's defence wi
consist of the inference that, on the con
trary. detectives planted objects abou
in order to incrimnate DR.. wilkins. II
J chuckied with satisfaction yesterda
J when his counsel drew from Meyers tina
Meyers in going through the house a
ways made It a point 70 to mark varlou
objects that he would know afterwar
ii any one else had handled them. 'bt
cause there were going IN and out {
the house a good many other detective
members OF the State consta bulary, III
Long Beach police and other official
and II II turned out afterward that any
thing was missing or brought In / didn
want any comeback against the Burr
agency