Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1922-02-06

quote Plaintiff
Expert as Calling
Signature False
Saturday morning; with the OPEN
ing of court at 9 o'clock Harry New
ton was called to. the stand in the
case of John A. Burke vs. Ellsworth
A. Piper. administrator of he estate
Of Nelson w. BARLEY. Mr.. Newton,
who had been critically ill. was per-
rflitted to sit during the examination
and was excused as soon as cross
examined. He stated that in Nav.
1919, he was employed by the Moose
head Telegraph and Telephone COM
pany and that he was working on the
boundary line on May 10, and that
on that day he went to Crocker Pond
and looked over Charles McKay's
telephone, which was out of repair
and that on the 0th of May he again
went to Croker Pond apd took with
him Daisy Newton. a relative who
was to wait on table at the Crocker
Pond Camps. Reports to the tele-
phone company sent in by Mr.. New
ton were shown to prove where he
was at work on certain days of the
month. In cross examination of Mr..
Newton it was brought out by Mr.
Pattangall that there was nothing on
the report slips relative to his being
at Crocker Pond on May IA, and
that day was made entirely from
memory.
The second witness called was Les
lie H. Goldsmith, assistant cashier of
the First National bank of Skowhe-
gan. who stated that he had held his
position for the past Is years and
that Mr.. BARLEY, up to the time of
his death, had had checking ac-
| count at the bank for all of that
time, and q savings account for a
number of years. He said that he
was familiar with Mr. Bartley's sig
| nature, as he saw him sign his
checks: that he had first seen the
disputed signatures after Mr.. Bart
| lcy's death, and that they did not
appear to him like Mr. Bartley's. In
cross examination Mr.. Pattangall
! asked Mr.. Goldsmith if he had ever
seen Mr.. Bartley's signature except
on checks. to which Mr.. Goldsmith
| answered that he had not. The WITT
ness stated that on checks BARLEY
wrote his name IN. w. Barley" He
| was shown some admitted signatures
! Of BartIey's and said he had never
seen him write his name on checks in
a way to resemble those signatures,
and said he thought BARLEY ha'
varied handwriting. Mr.. Pattangall
! requested him to bring him the bank
card bearing BartIey's signature.
which Mr.. Goldsmith agreed TO do.
The third witness was Fred W.
CovelI, paymaster for Is years for
! the Great i,orthCrn Paper company.
i He stated that at the Holeb opera
! ton BARLEY had to approve the pay
slips before Covell paid them, and
! that BARLEY signed them at the office
at Holeb. and he estimated that he
had seen BARLEY sign his name on
$50 of these slips. Several of the
slips were exhibited. Covel' said
that BARLEY was what he called
fast writer. He was shown the dis
puted signatures. numbers ~ and Is.
and said that they did not look like
Bartley's.
At 1890 the defense put on one OF
its handwriting experts. ]. V. Har-
ing. who lives in Newark, n. j., and
has an office in New Work City.
Mr.. Haring said that for the past 20
years he had been Il handwriting ex-
pert and that for the past 10 years
he had examined handwriting and
testified in court Mr.. Haring gave
full account of his work in examin-
ing the disputed signatures and COM
pairing the disputed signatures with
the admitted ones, using many tech
meal terms. He stated that after all
his work he considered signatures u
and rs not TO he genuine. He was ex-
amined a little after o'clock, after
long examination by Mr.. Pattan-
gall. The examination Of the de-
fense's handwriting experts was con-
Quoted by Mr.. Littlefield. Mr.. Hud-
son has examined its other witnesses.
At the opening of the afternoon
session the plaintiff put on Attorney
Thomas Leigh of Augusta. who stat
ed that Mrs. Nettie Nash twice, Whlie
a former trial was in progress, sald
to Mr.. Pattangall at the hotel. in Mr.
Leigh's presence, that she did not see
Nelson w. BARLEY at Croker pond on
May IA, 1919.
The second handwriting expert fer
the defense, w. e. Kingston. whose
home is in Wollaston. Mass, and whose
office is in Boston. was called. Te
explained his methods of procedure
in examinations. and said that ne
found the disputed signatures, II ana
IS, to be, in his opinion. not the sig
natures of Nelson w. BARLEY. He
considered them tracings made from
a copy. Mr.. Kingston, when asked If
anyone came into his office while he
was at work on the disputed sigma !
lures, stated that Attorney Edward e.
Merrill Of Skowhegan and one of the !
plaintiffs experts. Mr.. Hamilton |
were at his office. When requested |,
TO state what, if ahy, conversation |
took place, he said Hamilton asked |
him what he was doing. and he showed
Hamilton the disputed signatures and !
said he was trying TO prove that they /,
were not genuine. and Hamilton re-
piled. That's cinch" and added that |,
he would like as easy job. Kingston |
stated that Hamilton examined the |
signatures under glass.
Cross-examined by Mr.. Pattangail, |
Mr.. Kingston said that he and Hami,- |
~ e.,