|
132 TRIAL OF JOHN W. WEBSTER.
[The East Cambridge letter was next submitted to the witness; of
which a fac-simile will be found in the accompanying engraving.]
Mr. Gould.-I have examined this letter before. I have no doubt
that the characters or whatever else they are to be called, were made
by the same hand, that wrote the letters, submitted to me as specimens.
In this case, very little can be determined from the letters: but
many words strike my mind, from their resemblance. The word was,
occurs two or three times, and resembles his mode of writing it. The
words the, if, and capital E; w in watch, on the second page, and the
syllables be, and but, are, all very similar to his. The word Boston, on
the outside, is also very striking in its resemblance.
This letter was not written with a pen; I speak positively, as it
could not have been. It was done with something soft; the top of the
letters shows this. It could not have been done with a brush, for a
brush does not begin a stroke in that way. Nor could it have been done
with a pen; as there is no appearance of any harder pressure in one
place than another. There are, at the top of the letters, some marks
of very fine fibres finer than any hair. This is particularly noticeable
in the top of the letter i in the second line of the second page, which
should have been a capital, and which has no dot over it.
Mr. Bemis, to Mr. Gould.-You have seen this instrument before.-
[Exhibiting to him the cotton-pen produced by officer Fuller, consisting
of a small pine stick, a quarter of an inch in diameter, and six inches
long, and having wound round its lower end, a small wad of cotton,
tied on with a string.]-Are you able to stae, whether that erasure,
on the inside, was made with this instrument; or how it was made?
Chief Justice.-The evidence seems questionable.
Attorney General.-We suppose it competent for the witness, to
express an opinion, if he has made trial of the instrument and found
it to produce a similar mark: as much so, as if some novel instrument
had been found upon the prisoner's premises, of which no duplicate
could be shown to exist, and which, on its face, connected itself with
the erasure, or writing, as its necessary cause.
Chief Justice.-The supposed case, is quite a different one from the
present.
Attorney General.-Our proposition may it please the Court, is
this:-We find in the possession of the defendant, an instrument.
Whether it is novel or peculiar, the principle seems to be the same.
If it must have been the necessary cause of the mark, its importance
as evidence cannot be questioned. The relative connection between the
instrument, and the mark made by it, may be a matter of degrees;
and, though not absolute, or necessary, may properly be submitted to
the judgment of the jury.
My associate suggests this illustration. Suppose that a metallic type,
of a peculiar character, had been found in Dr. Webster's rooms; and
that there was no similar type to be found elsewhere; and that a
document, relating to Dr. Parkman's disappearance, was produced here,
in regard to which the question was, whether it had not been made by
that instrument. Would it not be a proper case for the opinion of an
expert? Would it not be competent, at least, to show, that the instru-
ment Must have been used with the prisoner's knowledge?
Mr. Merrick.-I understand, that the attempt is, to show that this
witness has made experiments with this instrument, and that he has
made a mark with it, similar to that inside of the envelope; and that,
from this, he is expected to testify, that the erasure, or other writing,
has been made with the instrument. We submit, that it is not
competent.
Chief Justice-(after conference of the Court.)-We think the
witness's opinion, quite inadmissible. The fact, that such an instru-
ment has been found, has already been proved; but opinion, as to its
possible use; would be liable to great objection.
|
