Year: 1877

A Singular Case at Rochester, N. Y.
[From the Rochester IN. Y.) Democrat.
During the recent noted trial of the three
fOrgers in the Court of Sessions some very


interesting facts were brought to light, which


were only briefly touched upon in our report


of the proceedings. Among the most impor-


tant witnesses was Dr. S. A. baltimore, Pro-


fessor of Chemistry in the University OF


Rochester. Some idea of the nature OF the


learned Professors testimony has already
| been given our readers, but in order better to


place the importance of the matter before the
public and give the information which it is


necessary should be given, reporter of the
Democrat and Chronicle held a short inter-
view with DR.. baltimore upon the subject.
The facts cleaned from the conversation will
be placed before our readers in condensed
interviewing style:


The case bears on the important question
of identifying written documents, especially
negotiable paper. In this particular case both
the drawer of the check and the bank teller
who cashed it, testified most positively to the
genuineness of the signature. Hence the
natural conclusion would be that the check
had been altered by changing the face in
some way from $40 to $3.50. Writing ma
terials, variety of pens, pencils, brushes,
inks, and several mysterious solutions were
found in the possession of the prisoners.
| They were sent to the witness Uattimore) by
| the Prosecuting Attorney, with the request to
make chemical examination and ascertain If


they could be employed in the manner sus-


pected.


The witness testified that he had analyzed
all of them and had proven that by their use
it was possible to remove writing in ink COM
pletely and to restore the paper to its original
appearance. The witness presented to the
court exhibits of checks which had been paid,
as shown by the bank stamp, from which
part of all of the writing had been perfectly
removed by means of this fluid found in the
possession of the prisoners, and the paper


was in no respect injured.


The witness evidence so far was strongly
in support of the theory above given, regard
ing the raising of the check But when he
came to apply the appropriate chemical tests
to the check itself, to ascertain whether it had
been treated as suspected or not, he discov-
cred that it had not been thus treated. This
revelation led him to suspect the genuineness
of the signature, which, up to this time, had
not been questioned by any one. Under the
microscope pencil tracings were detected;
then they were followed throughout the whole
signature. The witness offered in evidence
q photograph of the check in which the pencil
tracings were distinctly reproduced, and also
pointed out to the Judge and jury the tracing
on the iginal check-clearly seen, especially
by means of reading glass The force of
this evidence was to discredit evidence pre-
viously given as, to the genuineness of the
~ La AIon hat <ln
original check given by Mr.. Shedd had never
forged on which his signature had been traced
in pencil This explains the probable use of
the plate of glass fixed in an inclined frame,
found among the effects of the prisoners.


The defense at this point denied the posi-
bility of removing writing as asserted by the
witness, and challenged him to repeat in the
presence of the court the test, using the sOlu-
tons in question, and submitted as the test
the check itself, asking to have the test made
on part of the name of the paper, and also
on the latter part of the signature. Witness
took seat at the table under the eyes of both
Judge and jury, and proceeded with the test
demanded. In few minutes he stepped
into the witness stand and submitted the
check, which showed simply blank paper
where the letters "Ge0." had been written,
while from the latter part of the signature the
ink had totally vanished, revealing, however.
now the letters distinctly traced in lead pencil
as the witness had suspected. The expert
ment was perfectly successful and convinc-
ing, and left not shadow of doubt on the
minds of the court as to how the check had
been manufactured.


He was pressed to give the names and
chemical composition of the articles analyzed
and used in these tests. He consented to hand
up to the Judge, privately, the names OF the
articles, but refused to answer. on the ground
that by his public testimony he would be
placing dangerous instrument of crime in
the hands of dishonest persons. Counsel
waived the question.


1t is noteworthy fact, that by sort of
retributive justice, the chemists final and
complete demonstration of the falsity OF the
signature, as made in open court in response
to the challenge of the defense, was accom-
plished by the application of the identical
solution which the criminals had themselves |
brought to Rochester to use in perpetrating |
their frauds on our bankers. ,..,,- ..stoI


Moral-Be careful how you swear to your
signature. 43;


AVenisOn supper.