forty centuries of ink-第52章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



date　（1891）　was　still　in　his　mind；　and　its　destruction

by　himselfthat　he　had　changed　his　mind。



Justice　Ingraham　completes　his　opinion　in　deciding

the　case　as　follows：



〃In　this　case；　however；　the　long　time　that

elapsed　between　the　time　of　the　delivery　of　the

will　to　Mr。　Morgan　and　the　death　of　the　testator；

the　absence　of　my　satisfactory　proof　of　the　existence

of　the　will　from　the　time　it　was　delivered　to

Mr。　Morgan　to　the　time　of　the　testator's　death；

and　the　fact　that　the　testator　made　another　will；

making　substantially　the　same　disposition　of　the

property；　which　he　subsequently　destroyed；　all

tend　to　cast　a　doubt　upon　the　fact　that　the　will

was　in　existence　at　the　time　of　the　testator's　death；

and　there　is　positively　no　evidence　that　it　was　ever

fraudulently　destroyed。



〃I　do　not　think　the　court　is　justified　in　diverting

a　large　sum　of　money　from　those　legally　entitled

to　it；　by　allowing；　a　lost　will　to　be　proved；　except

upon　the　clearest　and　most　satisfactory　evidence

of　the　existence　of　the　will　at　the　time　of　the　testator's

death。　And　the　testimony　in　this　case　falls

short　of　what　I　consider　necessary　to　establish

such　a　will。



〃There　should　be；　therefore；　judgment　for　the　defendants

with　costs。〃

　*　　　*　　　　*　　　　*　　　　*　　　　*　　　　*



A　case　of　considerable　interest　was　tried　before

Hon。　Clifford　D。　Gregory　in　the　month　of　March；　1899；

in　the　city　of　Albany；　New　York。　It　was　entitled

the　〃People　of　the　State　of　New　York　against　Margaret

E。　Cody；〃　as　charged　with　the　crime　of　blackmail；

in　the　sending　of　a　letter　to　Mr。　George　J。

Gould；　in　which　she　threatened　to　divulge　certain

information　which　she　claimed　to　possess　about　his

dead　father；　Jay　Gould。　The　character　of　this

information　was　such　that　if　true　it　meant　that　Jay

Gould　and　his　wife　had　lived　in　bigamous　relations

during　a　great　number　of　years　preceding　their　death

and　hence　also　affected　the　legitimacy　of　the　entire

Gould　family。　Mrs。　Cody　asserted　that　Jay　Gould

was　married　to　a　Mrs。　Angel　some　time　in　1853；　and

that　as　a　result　of　that　〃lawful〃　marriage　she　gave

birth　to　a　daughter；　a　Mrs。　Pierce；　who　was　still　alive

and　living　somewhere　in　the　west。　As　Mrs。　Cody

offered　to　sell　or　secrete　the　information　which　she

said　she　possessed　for　a　consideration；　Mr。　George　J。

Gould　and　his　sister；　Miss　Helen　Gould；　instantly

determined　that　it　could　be　nothing　else　than　a　clear

case　of　an　attempt　at　blackmail；　which　falsely　impugned

the　reputations　of　their　dead　parents。　They

instituted　criminal　proceedings　against　Mrs。　Cody；

charging　that　Mrs。　Cody　when　she　wrote　the　letter

well　knew　that　her　claim　that　his　father　had　been

married　to　Mrs。　Angel　and　that　Mrs。　Pierce　was　their

daughter；　was　absolutely　false。　Two　trials　followed；

the　first　in　1898　in　which　the　jury　disagreed；　and　a

second　one　in　1899　which　lasted　over　a　week。　It

was　in　the　second　trial　that　chemical　tests　on　a　certain

entry　in　a　church　record　in　the　presence　of　the

jury　were　made；　which　showed　conclusively　that

ancient　writing　of　another　character　than　that　which

had　been　substituted　was　still　existent　beneath　the

writing　which　was　apparent　to　the　naked　eye。



The　following　are　excerpts　of　the　judge's　charge

to　the　jury：



〃I　wish　to　invite　your　attention；　for　a　few　moments；

to　the　baptismal　certificate。　You　have　had

produced　here　before　you　the　original　baptismal

record　of　the　church　at　Cooperville。　It　has　been

substantially　admitted；　in　the　arguments　of　this

case；　that　there　has　been　a　change　made　in　this

certificate。　I　do　not　think　that　the　District　Attorney

claims　that　there　is　any　evidence　that　Mrs。

Cody　herself　changed　this　record；　there　is　no

claim；　as　I　understand　it；　made　by　the　prosecuting

officer　that　she　went　there　and　obtained　this　book；

and　with　her　own　hand　changed　this　record；　but

he　asks　you　to　infer　and　find　from　the　evidence

that　has　been　given；　that　she　was　a　party　to　this

change；　that　she　was　privy　to　this　change；　and　that

knowing　that　fact　she　had　guilty　knowledge　when

she　wrote　the　letter　upon　which　the　indictment　is

based。



〃You　will　remember　that　Mr。　Carvalho；　the

expert　in　handwriting；　was　placed　upon　the　stand；

and　he　has　testified　in　your　presence　as　to　his

qualifications　in　determining　disputed　handwritings；

and　what　his　experience　has　been　during　a　long

series　of　years。　He　tells　you　that　he　has　examined

this　record；　and　that　there　is　no　question　but　some

of　the　words　have　been　erased　and　others　substituted

in　their　places。　He　tells　you　that　the　words

'Jay　Goulds'　were　not　the　original　words　in　the

certificate；　or　if　they　were；　the　present　'Jay

Goulds；'　as　they　appear　in　the　certificate；　have

been　forged；　that　the　words　'Mary　S。　Brown；'

the　'sex　mois；'　the　French　words　for　six　months；

and　other　changes　which　he　has　described　to　you

are　forgeries。



〃I　shall　submit　to　you；　as　a　question　of　fact；

whether　or　not　Mrs。　Cody　had　any　knowledge　or

took　any　part；　or　authorized　or　connived　at　any　of

the　changes　made　in　this　certificate。　I　do　not

say　that　she　did；　I　leave　it　to　you　to　say；　from

the　evidence　in　this　case；　whether　your　minds　are

convinced　that　she　had　any　part　or　parcel；　or

undertook　in　any　way　to　accomplish　the　changes

which　have　been　made　in　this　baptismal　record。

And　if　you　find　as　matter　of　fact　that　she　had

such　knowledge　at　the　time　this　letter　was　written；

if　you　find　as　matter　of　fact　she　had　this　information

given　to　her　by　Mrs。　Angel；　then　I　leave　it

to　you　to　say　whether　she　had　such　knowledge；

such　guilty　knowledge；　as　should　prevent　her；　if　acting

honestly；　from　writing　a　letter　such　as　has　been

described　here　and　contained　in　the　indictment。〃



The　jury　brought　in　a　verdict　of　guilty。



In　the　trial　of　the　People　v。　David　L。　Kellam　（1895）；

who　was　charged　with　altering　the　dates　of　three

notes　for　6；000　each；　the　contention　of　the　prosecution

was　that　the　dates　of　the　notes　had　been　changed

by　chemicals；　and　with　the　consent　of　the　defense　a

reagent　was　applied　to　the　suspected　places　and　the

original　dates　restored。　The　verdict　of　the　jury　was

guilty。



In　the　Holt　Will　case；　tried　in　Washington；　D。　C。；

in　the　month　of　June；　1896；　great　stress　was　laid　on

the　fact　of　the　difference　in　the　admixture　of　inks

found　on　letters　contemporaneous　with　the　date　of

the　will；　and　it　was　asserted　also　that　the　ink　with

which　the　will　was　written　was　not　in　existence　at

the　time　it　was　alleged　to　have　been　made；　June　14；

1873；　and　probably　not　earlier　than　ten　years　later。

Furthermore；　that　it　was　a　habit　of　Judge　Holt　up　to

the　time　of　his　death；　which　habit　was　illustrated　in

his　writings　and　correspondence　to　〃sand〃　his　writing。

The　jury　decided　the　will　was　a　forgery。



Another　famous　case　in　which　the　scientific　testimony

about　ink　and　pencil　writing　must　have　assisted

the　court　in　arriving　at　a　conclusion　was　in　the　trial

of　the　famous　Tighe　will　contest；　tried　before　Hon。

Frank　T。　Fitzgerald；　one　of　the　present　surrogates　of

the　county　of　New　York。　The　story　of　this　case　is

incorporated　in　the　opinion　which　is　cited　in　part：



〃Hon。　Frank　T。　Fitzgerald；　Surrogate　of　the

county　of　New　York：



〃That　Richard　Tighe　died　on　the　6th　day　of

May；　1896；　at　No。　32　Union　Square；　in　the　city

and　county　of　New　York；　where　he　had　lived　for

fifty　years　prior　to　his　death；　and　was　at　the　time

of　his　death　over　ninety　years。



〃That　the　testator；　on　or　about　the　27th　day　of

March；　1884；　in　the　presence　of　the　attesting　witnesses；

duly　signed　the　instrument　in　writing；　and

duly　published　and　declared　the　same　to　be　his　last

will　and　testament；　and　requested　said　witnesses

to　witness　the　same；　and　pursuant　to　such　request

said　attesting　witnesses　did　subscribe　said　will　as

attesting　witnesses。　That　at　the　time　said　Richard

Tighe　so　signed；　published　and　declared　the　said

in