South Worth The Expert

Wi' givc below extracts from the N. Y. Tribune, and Detroit Post and Tribune, and Free Pres?, in the celebrated Cadet Whittaker case, in which the self-styled exiert. Southworth, figured as an expert witnesH, and tbc opinión as to the value of hts to-timony : Krom the New York Tribune. At the Whittaker court-ruartial vestenlay the number ol vUitore present was couoiderably larjfer than at any prwtou sewion. The witneM for wbom Whitiaker' croe exaininatfon had been poetponed proved to be Henry I. Ilyde, a lawyer lrom í Mr. i li-uniK rlain satd that thi irltneet had had deallnga repeatedly with Mr. Southworth Jn hin rharactvr d! un exMTl. :tntt would testity to i,v repeated mistakes Ihat Mr. Southworih had made. The ny wan to tmpeach the eredlbïlitj ot Mr. Southworih m a wit nee i, both In ngtró n expert, and with relatnui to ome of the lat "int'ittfi which he had made under oaih. Mr. Hyde caid in ubstance : I met Mr. feouthworth flrt in I8S7, hm I nu il United Sinten Atiorney in the i.ilon ol an alleged coneplracy to rtefraud the governrnent. 'l'hc fraud hin'd npon ¦ forgerl cer ufleate. t eIlt for Mr. S-iuthvvnnh nnd iwkcd for hin atistaiire in dltOTWinjt who mt the fort; r. lic siiid that 11 I wonlri glvQ bim -:uiili-!of any handinitlDg h coqM teil wlth matbematlcal rxrtctuep vrbettMrtlM wrlterol tboH Mmpi ww tlic forgei if ¦tfntfnrv, J deHverad tome writini1 to him, whuh rvqacsted bob Uum to i-xaminc. Hu brougbtma awrit'en report, declarin tbat had r' hi-d an anqneatfooable conclnsion. 1 wked him w bal wan eztaatoJ ooafideoctt, U e replied ih;it il wn a jurymuii hf WOtd tiani' a m.m OO aiMni: that coaM presoni thfl rpKmu to a jury M that it could not ascape th un iiad reacbad. l mu down batido him and n?kcd him to dttDOBStflktfl ÜM IDftttCi tO BM a to a juiyman. lv aitt-mpted to du m. abowtng, aa tiioiiht, that tbe iai' i ware ai! ly Uw urne wrltc-r. and that the wrlUr vu tfee tornr, "Mr. Si.mliAurtti," 1 idd, " yon could oever m tneworM a jury tli.ii thM ieta of papon were wniten iy tbe tamo penon, )toreover, 1 knuw thé - l h.;h. One tel vu ritten hy a bookui a prominent firin in Boston . the otaei iy ii vrell-koown bat i neet man. I ihink I i .mmiteil with the írnud, bal ihcy ere certaloly dllIbirorlfa tboaght he conid m rovg, iut nsked furlhci time tu ezunlne Lbo iiüd ia done, be retanwd with anutbei irritten reporti nj mi: Kut be badcooi ludrd i wjif iiL'ht, imt thur wnter oJ one ael mm the torgcr, and aeeurLDtf me thil 1 nbibt pui him upon .'ni ud irlyup-ni tnin M ¦ wlllietl 1 alttTward fomxl ou t trutt tben rere tome rwelpta among papen ritten by n dul.Tcni noimii. i callea Mr. Southworth and related my dioovery, lic rutid be 'oni'i not be mistaken Me aaked iarther time, and run back reportlnc once more that 1 wai ru:iif refore, to eaU M r. tkothworUi ai nesS) aiui tin1 oaee waa proaw nted wltboai lus aid. iMr. C'hamlorla n -- Have you had to do with .Mr Boatbwottfa nt any otber Unie ¦ fea; l tx imlaed him mar tg Mie eaae ut Ppeooe Pettla, wiioin I waa debadlas agalnst an indicimmt ror forgtDK a draft. Tbe evldence fkiled to conneci Mr. Pettla with the dra ft on til recoarae had t two oxpertc, one nf wlitmi was Mr. itoQth wart b( who i that the deli-ndant had commltted the torfery. In my croM-ezainliiatkMi ol Mr Sonlhwortb look ve envelop (torn my peket, which (aller ramovliia; the letten) l hand-d to Mr. Soathworth, Miiti hun to teil w het her any ot tliein irefe In the baadwrltmg f Mr. Petthi. Be wai ailowed Mhat time ba mabe4, and at ia-t raaohad a conciuiion. Two, he said, ware ccrtainlj tu the defendHiit r hand ; of two I - i re, and the laat wax ccrtainly Dot. 1 rcplaccd the leiten in 'heb1 envclopee aud submittcd them to ihu Conrt. The firnt foarwareall wrlttan by diffjrani penone, and the (ifth, which Mr. Southworth wan fiire wn ot writim by Mr. I'ettif, was the on Ij one whJoh wae. fti priaener waj disohared and the cam; ai TbMj quention wa then put by the Cnurt : " W'hat degree ol" iraportauce roun you atiach to Mr. Soulhworth'i coDCJuaioni au an experi - In Bonton he 16 looked upon at a paflón whn would not teJl a delibérate faltehood, hut who bas extravagant notioDa of what he can do. He ta, Id fact, a monomnniñc. 1 -hould ttarh n importancc to any conclusión reactud by him beyond what I ooald myaeM - From the Detroit IVm Press. in ino wniiUKer coiirt-martiai to-day fcx-Uov. Chamberl&in paitl bc desired lo withdraw Whuukcr for the pnrpme of ealllng Hcnry D. llydo, a lawycr of Boeton, lo thr tand, who was orasto to IÑn UM city at au -ttrly lionr. The witnes ttH'itied that in 1887 bu was Asaislant District United Statu Attorney in the Kaetern District of Mafpachusetts, wben thrre mn broiiL'in U M att.ntlon certaln whisky Irtiuds in the transportaron of whisky from Buft'alo to Boston on forcea certiticates. There WM f 100,000 lnvolvud, and Soulhworth, hom the wilness called kk an expert, was to gel : -1 01 $11)0. Tli-The witness showed that South orth, alter tnily ex MiiidiiiiL' the fraudulent atre in connection with the variotii exhibits, told bim the forirery wa8 committed hy such and guch perrons, and he would stake bis lile on his decisión, and that were he on u jury he would huns; a man on such cvldenco. Witness poioted out to üouthworth tbat be was in error, which Sonthworth, after eiamlniuj,1 the papen, admitted in one case. Subaequently wltMM ifcoiwd bis error in anotber case, and dcclÍDcd to use bim on the trial as a wttmu, Witniss also clted ren Sonthworth had made as an expert in tnc Spcncc PetUa tank robbery case. From the Detroit Post and Tribune. The worthlci'snees of a great deal of "expert" testimony on the subject of bandwriting was illuetrated in the Whitiaker roui t-martlal yesterday, ban Henry D. Urde, a ell-kuown Boston lawyer, tcstitiecl ti"i.To!'s ilanders and false conclnslons by Southwortb, the "expert" whoe testimony is relied on to conxict Whittakcr. It will be remembered tbat this inan'.s evidoncc was the only testimony produced to show that Dr. Rose forged certain letter D's. Dr. Douglas ivouhl not swear they werc forgeries. WUen repcatedly asked by the legislative committee if bc would swcar they wore forgcd, be refused to do so, aod subscquently, before the court, he did not. The farlhest he would go was to say, " I do not think tbat is my writing," but he found a man who would (Southwortli), tept hini at his house night and day during Uig trial, and his testimony, which even Judge Iluntington rejected, is used by the supreme court, together with their owd wisdom and accumen, to relieve Dr. Douglas from accounting for the money represented by the stubs - something less than one-third of the number not accounted for by him - the balance Üuy hold Dr. Douglas accountable for. The validity of the?e 42 letter D's is the only point with which Dr. Rose is connected that the supreme court differed from the lower court (Judge Iluntington). Let u.i look at their reasons for this : 1 st. They examined Douglas' and Ilose's hand writing, and say that "if these disputed D's were the work of Rose they would not expect to find them in his ordi nary and natural hand, but an imüation of Douglas'." Did they find them so ? There was no imitation of Dr. Douglas' ordinary hand (no OM ever claimed it) but the contrary, they rcsemble neither the ordin.in, hand of Rose or Douglas, but the attempt seemed to be to have them as unlike as possible, although in the thousands of uu fjinstioned D's on the stub books there are almoát every conceivable kind ol characters or D' made, and the supreme onurt admits that Dr. Douglas' band writing "un derwent some change " "which hrtfotaced an element of emluuassment, in their attempt to test these disputed papers. They do not claim that Dr. Rose's hand changed, nor that it is not to-day substantiully kal it was 15 years ago. L'd. Iu addition to this txammattM " llnirs which liimnl mil as tliey stad', ppmik from what they would expect if RoBe forgcd the D's, they takc the expert Southwortb, and say: In addition to the examination Urn mads we have the expert testimony wliicli i-annot be overlooked, bul must raeslrt such weiglitasln oor Judgraent It lsenlltlid to. And "that there may be many things in his testimony that will aid them in coming to a just conclusión" and they take it. 3d. Acts, dcclarations and appearancc of the parties in their relations to the case. 1), t, -nil.-mt Boa,wfaa hisrttiition wan flrnt called ti) the hot tlmi the aooooni mbrnltMa byhlmor retuiti !¦ defendant DonglM wa not complete, examined hl book and aiiimttfii that the name nbmltted to hlm were not lnciuded; othen were preMDled and llke aeknowledüini-nts niailc. Methen ïoluntarily offer ml toand did pnatn ulist of ilrlinaaaataoeoanu tor 1874-B. eniered it In defendant DouglaK' "long book, ' nnd certlflcd to lts i'orrectneaa. Upon what authority doos the court stal e this as a fat-t admüted bj Rose? Truc Dr. Douglas, who was on trial as inuch as Ruo, swore to it. No one else. Dr. Rose on oath denied it and swore it was false. Supreme cmirt takt Doufflat. And, where does this story of Rose making out a list of his delinquencies for 1-71 i, i'titrrinir them on Douglas' "long bH)k'' and ccrtifyinp fo their conreinen eume frotu ? uch ;i thinii i m u to i-, wc neverhavc peen sudi a oeftiüeate; iperhaps other tilines of like ilk round their way ¦to the oue at LansingJ bui iheso are their reasons : lst. They examine the writing, expected to finil scimethiiiL' i f the re was d.rgcry, and diil nut tind it. 2d. Southworth'g testimony, show '1 to bc utterly worth 3d. Admissiotu ttaftd bu tn ooitri ai faeti, which rest on the tcstimoDyof' Donólas only, and areeachdenied underoath by Rose, and a list of his in Douglas' "long book," which ntttr took Now wliat ihould havo convinccd this court that Dr. Bom 'iiil DOt lbrge lliese Ds. lst If RoseforgedthcnihedidittO'' l)r. Dovgku, the 111:111 with whoui he had to vide. Would he have made llieni totally unlike Dr. üouglas' ordinarily ?ignuture as to style, which would attract attention and deteotion at once, ifa forgttryf 2d. When ta êmry initamci beforethi, in evcry book, Dr. Douidas had put on S. II. D., would Ko-mj have only put on a sinle I). Id. Would bu have Hacrediy preserved for 10 ycars book.x full of his f'orgeries when it would liave oecasioned no eomacBl il thcy had lieen lost or destroyed ? 4tli. Would Dr. Douglu' "accurate cash book " have balanced as he npiatedly testifioil it il ï 1 .' I f these were forgtriei it would have been ftíOúkOti on thision. Alto, in his annuil account for that year (which wasonc of thfl exerptmii, lieing itemiz ¦'!) he reportêd nrn'riny iirli mn 01 tho aivounis nproMDtMl by thflse stubs, Each une by name und amount. .'). If Dr, Hiise wis the fust míe to receipt with a tingle D, and a forgery al that, u-In did )r. Dooflu immediately obaog tod altoayt ih n'y in the MH w;iy .' lith. Il' thew '¦¦;¦'¦ Elow'ii fufgwiei and Dougfaur kdoptad bia style of reoe ptínge by singlo initial, ti lii did De DOt discover it was %orgerg until 10 yean ? Wegive the above not as a review of the supremo coatí decisión in the Roae-Doagl;is DM0, bat H a prtiul review of that part of it whicli beari on the " tbrgcry question." Therí ttmuch more oa thii subject, equally as oonvinoing, hut as we do Mi ratead to diaeuai the case in our coluinii-, eyen tliis would not have appeared, were not tbc export humbug Houthworth hciiii: :iiic 1 jusf now by the prc--.