The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1922-02-02

y w
! BARLEY. of Jackman, for whose mur-
! der Burke was acquitted after a second
! trial. Herbert Lemelin, of Fairfield
was excused and Willis Viles of An
son, a supernumerary juror, was ask
ed to serve on the panel. The case
was opened by Attorney w. r. Pat
tangall, of Augusta, suit having been
brought by Mr.. Burke to recover the
value of two promisory notes, one for
$1,000 and one for $1400, both given
en- on May IA. 1919. it is alleged by
Nelson W. BARLEY in favor of Burke,
Genuinenesa of the signatures was in
volved, and proof of the genuineness
neeessitated. Mrs. Flossie Williams
/ Burke, wife of John A. Burke, iden-
titled her signature on the. notes but
objection to testimony on the other
signature was objected to from the
fact that Mr.. Burke is the plaintiff
and that Mr.. BARLEY is deceased. The
same objections were sustained In the
testimony of Mr.. Burke. Wilbur f.
Turner of Reading, Mass, an expert
examiner of questioned writings, tes-
titled that he had been an examiner of
such writings for over IL years and
told of his work. Admitted standards
were examined by Mr.. Turner, these
being admitted signatures of Nelson
W. BARLEY and Mr.. Turner stated
that he had formed an opinion that
the signatures on the two notes in
question held by Burke against Bart
ley were genuine signatures.
AT the opening of court yesterday
morning there was large audience of
spectators. Witness Turner took the
stand and numerous handwriting ex-
hibits were offered by Attorney Pat
tangall. These were mostly in the
handwriting of BARLEY and Burke. Mr..
Turner told of his examination of the
handwriting comparisons by means Of
miscroscopy and photography. The
attorneys retired to remove from the
albums, which were used in the Burke
murder trial, photographs which are
not connected with the present case.
At the conclusion of this Mr.. Turner
again took the stand and the photo
graphs of the notes involved In this
litigation we're first taken up, also the
signatures of both BARLEY and Burke
and the signature of Mrs. Burke, the
jurors. having been given the albums
for inspection. Mr. Turner described
the contents of the albums and told
of his first examinations of the note
to determine how the signatures were
written and was unable to find any
suspicious in Bartley's signatures.
Witness said the outlines were per-
fectly normal as in an off hand writ
ing and that he did not find evidences
of tracing or drawing. He tubst; n
tiated his claims and said there was a
great variation In the penm"nship OF
BARLEY, especially In the final ~. lie
believed the signatures to be the gen.
i uine ones of BARLEY. Cross examin-
alton was conducted by A. S. Little
field of Rockland, who with George w.
Cover of Skowhegan and j. II. Hud-
/ son of Guilford are attorneys for the
hartley estate. This included careful
measurements of the exhibits relative
! to Photographic engagements anu
much diligent questioning on the Diff
! ferent ways the B. in BARLEY was
! made. The cross examination show
ed that the witness was unable to
find at any time "B" made exactly
! like the one in the disputed signature.
Witness said however, If he had stand
ards enough to go by. he should expect
to find the variance again. lie sug-
gested that different positions in writ
ing might occasion the variance in
the making of the particular letter
about which he was being cross exam
ined Witness said he did not form
an opinion on any one thing in an az
animation of handwriting but upon va
rious things put together.
After the midday recess Mr.. turner
took the stand and further character
i istics of Bartley's. handwriting were
considered under the cross exam1na-
ton of Attorney Littlefeld. Al MS
conclusion Attorney Pattangall picked
these characteristics to pieces anu
found early in the course OF his ex-
animation seven exceptions to the uni
yersal characteristics so called by AT
torney Littlefield, among the stand
| ards. Alfred H. Hamilton OF Albany,
| n Y. a micro-chemical investigator or
ink analysis where disputes were In
ouestion and examination OF hand
writing. was the next witness. He
had spent no less than fifty days In ak
amining the hand writing in question
as he was a witness at the two former
| murder trials. He went into detail
| minutely, taking up the writing OF
both Mr. and Mrs. Burke and BARLEY,
and the four methods of forgery, that
of tracing, copying by table model,
J free hand memorized model and an un-
| conscious model, He showed large
photos illustrating the disputed sigma
tureI samples of tracing and super
imposed tracings, this testimony show
ing that the witness believed the sig
natures to the two notes in question
were genuine.
The case will probably not be end
ed before tomorrow night as the mat
ter of the notes having been given
for an Illegal consideration as well
as non-genuineness Of the signatures,
is included in the defense. The de-
/ Tense will also have two hand writ
ing experts including j: V. Harring
of New York and William Il. Kings,
ton of Boston.
The present term of court promises
to be lengthy one and will prob
- .naot,,dod hafnra the Ia OF