Evening journal., 1923-02-03
ADAIR JURY
FAILS TO AGREE
State Likely TO Try Fraud
Allegation at Next Term
or Court
SECOND CHARGE
AGAINST HIM

Unable to agree on a verdict az
ter FIVE hours deliberation. the jury
in the case OF Robert Adair. sus-
pended attorney OF the New Castle
County Bar. charged with fraudu-
lently converting $50 OF a client. was
discharged from further considera-
tlon of the case in Court OF General
Sessions at 1910 O'clock last night.
After a two days trial. the case
was submitted TO the pury at 8
O'clock yesterday afternoon. 1t is
understood that on the final ballot.
the jury stood eight for acquittal
and four for conviction.
It is believed that the case will
again be tried Another charge OF
embezziement by attorney Is pending
against Mr.. Adair In this case.
which has been continued until the
next term OF court. Mr. Adair is ac-
cused OF misappropriating money In
a real estate transaction between Ed
ward duRoss and John Dudzinski.
Mr.. Adair was alleged 70 have
been paid $50 by Mrs. Ella V Block
som TO be applied 70 her account
with Wanamaker's for a plano. Il
was charged he turned only $50 OF
lt over 20 the local attorneys for the
Philadelph3a store. At the time
Adair was acting as counsel for the
woman.
A stir OF interest in the otherwise
dry trial was caused yesterday after
noon when. the State placed on the
stand q, W. etein, a handwriting
expert OF Philadelphia. He testi-
fed that two pen-and-ink written
papens. offered into evidence by the
defendant as true copies OF letters
that he had sent Mrs. Blocksom on
October 80 and November 2. 1920.
had been written within the past
twenty-four hours and probably
within the laAt ten hours.
Mr.. Adatr had claimed that he
had made the copies of the letters at
the time OF his alleged sending OF
the originals 20 Mrs Blocksom. He
had offered them IN evidence in at
tempt 20 d'scredit the testimony
given by Mrs Blocksom.
After Deputy Attorney General
southerland had finished his ques-
tioning OF the witness. Mr.. Adair de-
ciared 10 the Court that the State
had taken unfair adva ntage Of
him" IN not informing him OF their
Intention OF producing Mr.. Stein as
witness.
Adair. however. closely cross-ex-
annned 1fr. Stein and presented
three papers, with the dates con-
cealed. and asked him 20 determine
when they had been written. After
taking twenty minutes 70 examine
them with a microscope outside the
Court room, the handwriting ex-
pert testified that they had been
written AZ least month ago and
probably two years ago.
In explanation OF the great diff
ference In time. Mr.. Stein repeated
the explanation previously made by
him under direct examination: that
ink natures on paper more rapidly !
during the frst month after writing |
and after that it, matuing Is slow /
er. While II Is usually possible TO I
tell papers written within a month, /
he said that after that time Il is .
rather difficult to state the length .
ot time they have been written.
The ink on the two alleged copies
n letters that the State had ques-
toned was nhnifestly fresh. Mr..
stein said. and were not written two
years ago. He emphasized that they
we're written no longer than twenty
four hours before the time he ex-
imined them.