OCR Text |
Show STATE RESTS CASE IN TBI OF IfiTII Cross-examination of Handwriting Hand-writing Expert Is Brief; Defendant May Testify. K.ecl to The Tribune. Ogdicn, Nov. 3(.-nue to the brief cross-examination of 'Albert K. Osborne and other hundwrlllng experts by atlor-neys atlor-neys for the defendant, the state today concluded the Introduction of evld'ence In Ihe (rial of Joseph Henry Martin There will he some evidence for the state In rebuttal, but such testimony will re- 1'dSvl,"",,"'""'1 ',''!"' "'''""ling to at-orn. at-orn. s Attorney John U. Willis was not or il . ',, '" ""''xpectcl conclusion ,o , J"'", " ;um- '" was adjourned iit.out J clock until tomorrow moinlng iv in '' . 5.' adjournment gnvo Attorneys " Hlls and IX l Stlne lime to confer will, rpo,.d witnesses for tho defense, and the lrs( of these will he placed on the stan, (omorrow morning. As near as an be estimated by Martin's attorneys, luee days will be re,,uli,,d to introduce lestlmoiiy for the dn(,.ne. More than a score of witnesses have been summoned, it many of th. se are to testify concerning concern-ing .Mart n s character, and will therefore be on (he stand only a few minutes. Arguments probably will be made on Sat-uiuay Sat-uiuay and the ,-nec may go to the Jury sa l ul day evening. J Not more than a half dozen rpieslions wer,, pm , handwriting expert by Attorney wiins when Mr. Osborne ,'on-ilnded ,'on-ilnded his direct testimony today. The principal rpiestion asked by Martin's attorney at-torney of the New Vo'rk man was au use.! any writings, admittedly ad-mittedly those of persons other than Martin. In making his comparisons with the disputed documents. Mr. Osborne admitted ad-mitted that he had used no writings save those given to him as standards of the defendant a handwriting Paring the conclusion of Mr. nshotne's I testimony. Attorney WHlls objected to Ihe witness's manner of presenilis his IH,, rn,7', """-rt'-B that he was working himself l0 th(, lwUon of an aUor,r rather than a. witness before the jurv. l.AU"r!"'-y "'"l'"'" nilnd. Mr. Osborne as arguing the ease and conducting hlm-eir hlm-eir much Ihe same as a prosecutor In reply to the objection. Attorney K O I.eatherwood contended that under the modern rules of .ourt II was within Ihe province of an expert to advance opinions before a Jury. Attorney Willis, objection objec-tion was overruled b,- 1,.. r . ,, .... , . -' "'"'e ' ... itoweii. At the conclusion of Mr. Osborne's tes-Imony tes-Imony and brief cross-examination, at- handwriting witnesses to the stand Thev ;Vr,r" 'V- Joncly, a bank cashier of Salt Iake: R. T. Badger, another Salt rXke banker and Karl .lay Gla.le. handwriting st ident. who studied under Mr. Osborne n ! ;'""7,,t stifled that In their opinion t he hand that wrote ihe Martin standards 'hp disputed documents or blackpiall letters. Before resting their case, attorneys for the state explained that It would be nee-cssary nee-cssary to summon some of the witnesses hem ofore beard to present evidence In rebuttal. There will be approximately iwenty-flve wllnesse, for Ihe defense torneys TMIlla and Stlne iiave not yet Tn- hhnserr on",'bh"r ,hV W1" P'-e 'Martin l,ln self on the witness siand, as In the nr.l trial of the alleged blackmailer |