Salt Lake Tribune | 1914-03-08 | Page 14 | Expert Declares Signatures Differ

EXPERT DECLARES SIGNATURES DIFFER Deposit of $4400 Is Question at Issue in Junction City Case, Special to The Tribune. OGDEN", .March 7. The declaration of Douglas A. Swan, a handwriting expert ex-pert of Salt Lake, that tho eamc person who furnished tho signature specimen at tho time of the deposit did not sign tho orders on which tho $4400 were drawn, was the principal oTidenco introduced intro-duced today in the suit of Mrs, Louise Van Dyke, noo Mrs. Louiso Van Dyke Turner, against tho Ogden Savings bank. The woman is suing to recover on a deposit de-posit alleged to bavo been drawn out of tho bank on orders forged by her divorced husband, J. J. Turner. With tho aid of a blackboard and a magnifying glass, Mr. Swau demon-strated'to demon-strated'to tho jury the alleged technical differences existing in tho signature "Louiso Turner' as signed to tsomo of tho exhibits of her handwriting and thoso on tho orders alleged to have been forged. When attorneys for tho defense objected to tho use ot the word "he" bv Mr. Swan in refcrenco to tho signer of tho alleged bogus orders, tho hnnd-writing hnnd-writing witness said that it cortainly resembled musculino handwriting, but that ho meant to uso the words "the person" per-son" or "the signer." At tho adjournment adjourn-ment of court for the day Mr. Swan had completed his direct testimony and tho crosh-oxarainntion will bo taken up on Monday. After trie defenso had rested its case, Mrs. Van Dyko was called to tho stand bv tho plaintiff in an effort to show that sho had not signed the orders. Her testimony was to tho effect that tho $4400 had been doposited in the local bank in 1003 whilo sho was living in Ely, Nov., and that it was in the namo of Louieo Turner, her marriage to J. J. Turner having taken placo in 1007. Tho plaintiff declared that she had signed orders for no part of tho amount on doposit and that when she nsked for an accounting in October, 1913, sho wan told by Cashier Charles Barton that the account was closed, hor husband hus-band having drawn out tho money on orders signed by her. Sho said sho was completely dumfounded when she learned tfiis aud asked tho bank of ticial what to do. According to the witness s storv, ho advised her to go homo and have an accounting with nor husband, as sho probably "would havo something on him.M Mrs. Van Dyko' said sho told tho bank cashier at tho time that sho hud never signed an order on tho doposit. do-posit. . Later, when Cashier Barton and Chief of Polico W. I. Nortou wcut to the home for tho purpose of arresting Turner on a charge of forgery, Mrs. Vau Dyke quoted her husband as saying. "I guess I am up against it and you had better lock me up." Tho ehargo of forgery was duly lilod against Turner, but his wife, this being prior to the divorce proceedings, could not appear against him and the charge was dropped. The cross-examination of Mrs. Van Dyko continued for the greater part of tho afternoon, but tho attorneys for tho bank failed to materially change her direct testimony.