In 1868 Adams lived with his father and brothers on a farm, near Rahway, N. J., adjoining the Gordon place. The two men became well acquainted through their common interest in music. Adams called upon A. Sidney Doane, a nephew of Gordon, and told him that Gordon had made a will in 1868 which might be found or if lost, established by means of a draft of it which he (Adams) had retained. Mr. Doane refused to act upon this proposition. Then Adams presented the matter to Guthbert O. Gordon, a brother to George P. Gordon. He declined to consider the proposed search for a new will. Adams then wrote to Guthbert Gordon, Jr., cautioning him to say nothing to any one, but to come and see him. Guthbert Gordon, Jr., declined to accept Adams's invitation for a secret conference. Adams did not write or communicate with the widow or daughter of George P. Gordon, or with any of the officials or other persons who dealt with the estate. Finding that the heirs at law were satisfied with the arrangement of the estate under Gordon's daughter's management, he gave up his efforts at that time.

In 1890 Mary Agnes Gordon, the daughter, died in Paris, and remittances from her ceasing and her will not being satisfactory to those who had been receiving them from her, another contest was begun. This caused a renewal of Adams's activity. In 1890 he wrote to Messrs. Black & King, a firm of lawyers who represented the contestants of Mary Agnes Gordon's will. Adams's letter to the law firm contained this expression:

"If one of you will come over here on Sunday morning, bringing no bra.s.s band, fife or drums, I will tell you something worth knowing."

Mr. King visited Adams, who was then living at Orange, N. J., and was told by him that Mr. Gordon had executed a will in 1868 which he (Adams) had drawn at Gordon's instance, and that he had retained a corrected draft from which the will itself had been copied. He also told King that the original will after its execution had been left with his father, and that it must be at his father's homestead near Rahway, where he would try to find it. A few days later he wrote to Black & King that the will had been found, and the next day went with the lawyers to Rahway and identified the package found by his brother Edward Adams, who occupied the Rahway farm, as that which contained the will. The package, unopened, was taken to a safe deposit company and the original draft was deposited with the secretary of state. The alleged will, which Chancellor McGill p.r.o.nounced a forgery when finally opened in the preliminary probate proceedings, was found to be a very long and complicated doc.u.ment, written on blue paper in black ink. The draft, which was on white paper, was also written in the main in black ink, but a copious quant.i.ty of red ink had been used in interlineations. The significant paragraph of the new will was a direction to his heirs to purchase, if the testator had not succeeded in doing so before his death, the Henry Adams farm for $32,000. Minute directions were given to insure the purchase, but no lower price than $32,000 was mentioned. Commenting upon this Chancellor McGill's remarks:

"It is also to be here noted that the Adams farm is now scarcely worth one-third the price for which it is directed to be purchased."

Continuing the court says:

"The only living person who professes to have had knowledge of this disputed paper prior to November, 1890, is Henry C. Adams. He most clearly and positively testified that he drew the disputed paper at the instance of Mr. Gordon. He produced a draft from which he said it was copied. . . . I have already stated that Mr. Adams testified most positively when the draft of the disputed paper was offered in evidence that it was the identical doc.u.ment from which the will of 1868 had been copied, and it is to be remembered that the interlineations in that draft are almost all made with red ink, and that Mr. Adams testified that those interlineations existed when the will was copied from the draft. With a view to testing the truth of this testimony the contestants submitted the draft to scientific experts, who p.r.o.nounced the red ink to be a product of eosine, a substance invented by a German chemist named Caro in the year 1874, and after that time imported to this country. At first it was sold for $125 a pound, and was so expensive it could not be used commercially in the manufacture of ink. Afterwards the price was so greatly reduced that it became generally used in making red ink. It is distinguished by a peculiar bronze cast that is readily detected.

It was recognized in the red ink interlineations in the draft of the disputed paper produced by Mr.

Adams by a number of scientific gentlemen, among whom were some of the best known ink manufacturers in the country, and Mr. Carl Pickhardt, who first imported eosine. Upon further examination the witness, Adams, said he thought the draft produced to be the original until he saw the will on blue paper, and that then he was perplexed, but dismissed his doubt upon the suggestion of counsel, but afterward he thought upon the subject 'in the vigils of the night,' but by an unfortunate coincidence did not reach substantial doubt enough to correct his previous testimony until after the testimony concerning the character of the red ink he had used in interlining had been produced. . . .

It is impossible to study this remarkable case at this point without grave doubts as to the truthfulness of Mr. Adams, and indeed as to the frankness with which the case was produced in court in behalf of the proponents."

As to Adams as a witness, the court finally says:

"And as I read the confused answers of Mr.

Adams and note his apparent misapprehension of questions that would tend to involve him, and note the apparent failure of his theretofore wonderfully clear and exact memory of the most trivial and unimportant details, I am inclined to reject the whole story as a fabrication that has been punctured and fallen to pieces. . . . I find it to be impossible to rely upon the testimony of Henry C. Adams. Excluding it the will is not proved. . . .

"I will deny probate, revoking that which I have heretofore granted in common form."

In the attempt made to prove the alleged last will and testament of Stephen C. Dimon, deceased, chemistry was the all-determining factor in the most important branch of the case. The peculiar features of this remarkable and unique case are best described by presenting them with a brief history of the entire matter.

In 1884 Stephen C. Dimon of the city of New York made and executed a will, choosing as legatee and executrix a Mrs. Martha Keery. The will he intrusted to the custody of his counsel. It appeared.

that some time during the following year his attorney transferred this will from its resting place in a desk drawer to a new safe and recalled having seen its envelope a year later, but said he never saw the will 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 doc.u.ment 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 doc.u.ment 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 const.i.tuents, 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 himself--that 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 ent.i.tled 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 ent.i.tled 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 a.s.serted 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 inst.i.tuted 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 subst.i.tuted 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 subst.i.tuted 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 's.e.x 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 a.s.serted 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 ill.u.s.trated 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 a.s.sisted 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 instrument to be his last will and testament, the said Richard Tighe was in all respects competent to execute the same, and was not under any restraint or undue influence. That the said instrument, so signed, published and declared by testator was and consisted of the identical sheets of paper and the identical writing now appearing upon the same as to all except pencil writing; the testator did not publish or declare the marks, words or figures written in or upon said instrument in pencil to be a part of his last will and testament, and it is not found that such marks, words or figures were upon said instrument at the time when said instrument was so published and declared to be the last will and testament of the testator.

That the said last will and testament is written consecutively upon two sheets of legal cap paper.

"That the said last will and testament was originally prepared with blank s.p.a.ces left for the insertion of the numbers of shares intended to be bequeathed and devised to the various beneficiaries named therein, and as so prepared was in the hand-writing of Caroline S. Tighe, the wife of testator, and that at some subsequent time and before the execution of the said instrument by the said Richard Tighe, the blank s.p.a.ces hereinafter referred to as filled in in ink, were filled in by or under the direction of the testator. Upon said instrument as offered for probate there appears in the blanks originally left thereon, in some instances, pencil writings superimposed over other pencil writings, which have been either wholly or partially erased, and in other instances ink writing different from the body of the instrument in the material employed, appearing over pencil writings wholly or partially obliterated. . .

"That the said words written in ink filling such blanks as aforesaid expressed the final determination of the testator with regard to the beneficiaries to whom the same applied; and that the words and figures written in pencil filling such blanks as aforesaid were written only deliberately and tentatively and that as to those words and figures the testator had not at the time when he executed, published or declared said instrument to be his last will and testament determined as to whom or in what proportions he would give the several shares of his estate and property covered by said words and figures, but the testator attempted and intended to reserve to himself the power of making disposition of said shares thereafter, and intended the final disposition thereof to be in ink writing. . . ."

CHAPTER XXIV.

CHEMICO-LEGAL INK (CONTINUED).

FAMOUS CASE OF CRITTEN V. CHEMICAL NATIONAL BANK--STORY OF THE CASE INCLUDED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AS WRITTEN BY JUSTICE EDGAR M. CULLEN--THE PINKERTON CASE OF "BECKER"--STORY OF HOW HE SECURED $20,000 THROUGH THE ALTERATION OF A $12 CHECK--BECKER'S COMMENTS ABOUT HIMSELF--A CRITICISM OF BECKER AND HIS WORK--NAMES OF SOME CASES IN WHICH CHEMICAL EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED TO COURTS AND JURIES.