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！
thereafter。
In 1893 Mr。 Dimon died。 No will being produced；
his brother took； out letters of administration。 Whereupon
Mrs。 Martha Keery commenced a suit against
the brother and the next of kin he represented； in
an effort to obtain the dead man's estate。 She based
her claim solely on the LOST will； the contents of which
were recalled in the trial by Mr。 Dimon's former
counsel； who was also one of the witnesses to the lost
will。 During the course of the trial in the Supreme
Court； presided over by Justice George L。 Ingraham；
Mrs。 Keery's attorney produced a mutilated document
which from its reading indicated that it had once
been a will； though not the 〃lost〃 one。 But the
names of the legatee； executrix； testator； names of
witnesses and their addresses were completely obliterated。
The written portions still undisturbed showed
it to be in the handwriting of Stephen C。 Dimon。
Mrs。 Keery's story was that after the death of Mr。
Dimon in going over an old coat formerly worn by
him； she had found it in a side pocket and had given
it to her counsel just as it came into her hands。
Its condition showed it to be considerably pocket…
worn。 The obliterations referred to represented huge
blots of black ink covering a lot of scratches and
making it impossible to decipher the under writing。
Defendant's Counsel immediately requested that the
document be turned over to an expert； to see what
could be done with it。 The judge granted the motion
and adjourned the case for several days to await
results。
Counsel on both sides joined in the selection of
myself。 Three days were occupied in its decipherment。
The will occupied two sides of a full sheet of
legal cap。 The original ink which was employed in
the writing of the will was of pale gray color。 The
first obliterations were a series of pen and ink
scratches and marks which destroyed the writing。
Not satisfied with them the operator had with a saturated
piece of blotting paper； brushed over the
scratches and as that ink was of good quality every
mark of writing had disappeared in the jumble and
blots。 It so happened that three inks had been employed。
The original ink； the ink used for scratching
and the one employed to do the blotting。 The three
inks were happily mixtures containing different constituents；
and so by utilizing the reagent of one which
did not affect the other； gradually the encrusted upper
inks were removed and later the original writing appeared
sufficiently plain not only to be read but to
identify it。 Photographs made before and after the
chemical experiments； permitted court and counsel to
make their own comparisons during the giving of the
testimony about it。
It permitted also the finding of the two witnesses who
lived outside of the city and to learn many details
from them as to Mr。 Dimon's conduct in the matter。
The restored will showed that Mrs。 Keery at its
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 c