Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1919-04-03
DISPUTED PAPER
HAD Been WET
Admission Made by Eastman's
Handwriting Expert on
Cross Examination

Rutland. April I'm the cross-examina-
tion In Rutland county court to-day Of
william e. Kingston Of Boston. expert
witness for the respondent in the George
II. Eastman perjury case. Attorney.
General Frank c. Archibald drew from
the examiner of questioned documents
tnat when exhibit 1. the disputed paper
In the present case, first reached In back
In l9l7 1t had been wet and this wetting
had, with few exceptions dimmed
the lines Of the writing and obliterated
some Of its characteristics. The witt
ness said that In his experience he had
been asked to examine other documents
which had been wet and he had seen
Forged papers where parts had been taken
out and substitutions made by wettlng.
Mr.. Kingston had previously testified on
his direct examination that as far as the
signatures were concerned exhibit /.
which is an alleged Is years old agree
ment between Eastman and the Vermont
Marble company as to quarrying rights
at West Rutland, was genuine docu-
ment He was Intercepted In cross
examination as to whether anything
about the document aroused his sus-
picions, X there was anything about any
or the signatures which required answer
Ing when 1t was first presented to him
and he replied that in addition to the
moistening he noticed that the writing
In the name s. f. Smith. when compared
with standard, showed a tremor.
The attorney-general went over with
the witness a number Of photographs and
many documents and bits of paper on
which there were writings and he was
asked to explain similarities or dis
similarities in the penmanshp. A photo
~ n If I'm, 80 ~ eta
OF the Hotel Stanwix at Albany, N. Y.
where the State claims Eastman was on
May S, 1917, when the respondent asserts
he was in New York, was used in con-
nection with the cross-examination and
each juror was given copy Of the photo
graph for a close inspection. The sigma
ture, q. l.. Brown, Boston. appearing on
the register Is claimed by the prosecu-
ton to be that Of Eastman, the allega-
ton being that he went to the hotel to
meet Ernest H. O'Brien (whose presence
here is not disputed) the day before East.
man put into his civil case with the
Vermont Marble company the disputed
document which O'Brien is declared to
have found among old papers three months
before the expiration of the &-year-old
option involved in the document
Attorney James A. Merrill of this city
was witness for the respondent to-day.
He testified concerning letter press copies
of exhibit 1 which were found among tho
effects Of the late George E. Royce. one
Of the sgners. in Judge Merrill's office.
1t developed to-day that the State still
has a question pending before A. H.
Hamilton of Auburn, N. Y. who testified
as an expert for the respondent and gave
his opinion of the age of exhibit 1. The
prosecution handed Mr.. Hamilton q
bunch Of papers containing writing and
asked him to tell their age. using only
the same methods of examination applied
to the disputed paper. The Auburn man
contends that he has not the equipment
at hand at the court house to do this.