other notes for $2,500, each payable in six months, - all bearing date July 30th, 1817. To all the notes there were but two dates: July 6th, and July 30th; and to all but two times of payment, four and six months. All the twelve notes of July 6th, and ten of the notes of July 30th, were payable in six months; and the other ten notes of July 30th were payable in four months; that is, $25,000 fell due on 3d December, $31,000 on the 9th January, and $25,000 on the 3d February. The body of all these notes was written by Mr. Miller's clerk.

Mr. Belknap testified, that he thought he did not sign any of the thirtytwo notes presented to the jury; that he paid one note of $2,500 for four months of the date of July 30th, when it became due, which note he subsequently thought was not genuine, and that he never authorized Miller or any one else to sign his name.

Mr. Belknap's clerk testified, that he kept Belknap's books; that all the notes issued by Belknap were entered in those books, and that only the four notes, to the amount of $10,000, mentioned above, were in his books; that on the 9th August, 1847, he met Miller, and compared a memorandum from his note-book with Miller's memorandums; that Miller said that the two agreed, and that the two notes of July 6th and the two notes of July 30th, were all the notes, except some collateral ones, which he had received from Belknap in the months of July and August.

It was also shown, that Miller had obtained from the bank porters, Belknap's notices in relation to the forged paper, and that he prepaid some of the forged notes. He left Boston a few days before the maturity of the notes due December 3d, and the explosion took place.

The testimony of the experts was as follows:

N. D. Gould. Have taught and executed penmanship the most of my life. For four years last past have been in this city. Have taught penmanship about fifty years. Had a taste for it from my youth. Have examined everything connected with it that I could find, to ascertain what could or could not be done by a pen. Am 67 years old. Have often examined writings with reference to questions of forgery, not so much in this state as in others. Have been foreman of a jury when a question of forgery was tried. (Notes from 1 to 33 were handed the witness.)

Can't say whether I have seen all of these; have seen notes like a great many of them. Saw them in the grand jury room. Was secretary of the grand jury from January 1848 to July 1848.

There are five classes of notes here; that is, five different signatures; the name written in a different manner. There is one class of $2,000 dated July 6, for six months, five in number. Of the second class, $3,000, July 6, six months, there are five. Of the third class, $3,000, same date and time of payment, there are two. The fourth class, $2,500, July 30, four months, are eleven in number. In addition to this class, there is one, $2,500, July 30, on six months; it is No. 4; this matches with the fourth class, which are for four months. The fifth class, $2,500, July 30, six months, are nine in number. Two, that were brought in yesterday, Nos. 32 and 33, I should think I had seen in the grand-jury

room.

The signatures in the first class match each other exactly; by

matching I mean placing one upon the other. (The witness went to the window, and held the notes over each other in the presence of the jurors and defendant's counsel.) I have just shown the jurors Nos. 9 and 30; all of that class will match as well. This is the only reason for my arranging these in one class. Class 2, answer to one another in the same way. Class 3 match in the same way with one another, and with none others. Class 4, do not have the same appearance to the eye, but they all match each other; there are twelve of them. Class 5, all match. Think all of these were not written in a usual manner of writing; they were probably by some means traced. Some bear fine marks of tracing, besides the final mark. No 1, I examined with a glass, and it is very perceptible there was a mark made with something before the final mark was made. This mark was over the whole signature; the same of No. 2. Think the same is true of No. 3. Have seen some forty or fifty signatures of Mr. Belknap's. Don't hesitate to say Mr. Belknap did not sign all of the three,-Nos. 1, 2, 3.

It is possible for a man, by continual practice, to write his name twice, so that to the eye it would appear perfectly similar. No man can write his name so that it will match exactly one on top of the other. When they are placed together, the length and breadth and turn of the letters always vary somewhere. When men are in the habit of signing bank bills, where they have a particular circumscribed space to write in, their names will sometimes come pretty near matching. A man who undertakes to counterfeit another's hand, must do it by a slow process, which on strict examination looks stiff and unnatural. Sometimes a name by great practice is so fixed in the eye and imagination, that a man can write it through at once. But if he goes too slow or too fast, he will manifest that he is a better or worse writer than the one he attempted to imitate. A man may write his signature so as to appear often alike. But there is a step beyond which a man cannot go, in this. There are no two handwritings alike, any more than two faces. A man cannot move his hand at will, like a machine.

I will now give my reasons for saying that no man wrote these signatures in the usual manner. In the first place, in almost every one of each class the distance from the first letter to the edge of the paper on the right hand, is exactly the same. From the last mark in the letter p to the edge of the paper on the right hand, the distance is the same. This is so in almost every one. Every mark included between those two marks are all materially alike in each class. I mention the first mark because no man can strike the pen in the same place, in beginning to write his name. He wonthe don't. If he could do that, he could'nt make all the other marks alike, in length, breadth, and every turn, and then close them all at the same distance from the end. The letter 'p' Mr. Belknap makes differently from common folks. It is made sideways, with a heavy stroke. In the p's there is some variance, but very slight in the notes. I think it is impossible for a man to write his name four or five times exactly alike.

Cross-Examined. My attention has been particularly turned to this

matter, and first in the grand jury room. Made the memorandum from which I read last night, from minutes taken previously. (The witness here examined No. 1, 2, 3, with a glass, at the window, in the presence of defendant's counsel.) There appears to be a fine mark on all these three, besides the final mark. (The glass was borrowed at an optician's.) Some of the signatures of the 30 others appear to have been written without previous tracing with any other instrument. They must have been traced. They were not written off hand.

George G. Sinith. Reside here; am an engraver; have been so 37 years; have often examined handwriting in reference to the question of forgery. (The 33 notes were handed the witness.) Have seen most of them before; of some am sure. They have been divided in five classes; have not examined them particularly. No. 1, 2, 3, I have examined carefully under magnifying glasses. I think they are not genuine signatures. My reasons for thinking them not genuine, are, first, the signatures all match each other, very nearly with absolute perfection. The dots between the letters not only correspond exactly in place, but in form. A tremulousness is manifested under the magnifyer, which shows the signatures were written slowly, not as a man would naturally write his name. They all betray the marks of two lines, indicating either a tracing over a fine mark, or a filling up the marks first made. (The witness examined No. 1, 2, 3 with his magnifyer, and showed the jury the peculiarities in those signatures.) Have given the other 30 notes only a cursory examination. But I think they must have all been forged but one; don't recollect the number of that one. I think them forged on account of the impossibility of any man's writing his name twice so nearly alike. A man does not naturally write his name exactly alike. Never saw a man who could write his name twice so as to stand the test of the magnifyer. Have seen Mr. Belknap's signature. Comparing these signatures with Nos. 1, 2, and 3, should say these notes were not the signa ture of Belknap. There is a marked peculiarity in the p. The line connecting the stem of the p with the last part of it, does not seem to be joined to the stem in Nos. 1, 2, and 3. In the genuine signatures of Belknap, these marks are connected. (The witness examined the signatures to the bonds mentioned above, with his magnifyer.) Have examined nine of these. The signatures don't agree at all. In every instance the p has been made without taking the pen from the paper.

Cross-Examined. Have examined all the 33 notes. First examined No. 1, 2, 3, in Mr. Bartlett's office Saturday last. Night before last I reexamined them.

On the part of the defence it was shown that, for some years, Miller had been in the habit of transacting business for Belknap, and that his office was Belknap's stopping place when in the city. There was an attempt to show that all the notes which Belknap gave Miller, were not entered in Belknap's note-book, by producing a receipt in the hand-writing of Belknap's clerk, in which it appeared that on the 8th of December, 1846, a note for $2000, on six months, had been given by Belknap to Miller, while the clerk, in his testimony, had sworn that no such note had been given. But it was shown, by referring to the books, that the receipt

had been mutilated, and that over the part torn off, this $2000 note was marked returned. It was attempted to be proved, but unsuccessfully, that Belknap signed these notes, or some notes about that time.

WELLS, C J., in summing up to the jury, ruled that, To constitute the crime for which the defendant is indicted, five points must be established. Ist. That the defendant had in his possession notes corresponding to those described in the indictment. 2d. That, having them in his possession, he uttered them as true. 3d. That these notes were counterfeit. 4th. That the defendant knew them to be counterfeit. 5th. That he intended to defraud.

It is admitted that the defendant had in his possession the three notes described in the indictment, and that he uttered them as true. If they were counterfeit, the defendant admits he knew them to be such, and intended to defraud. The only point for you to decide is, are these notes forgeries? The government must prove that Belknap did not sign his name to those notes. Of this fact you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. The memory of witnesses is very apt to be imperfect in regard to dates and sums; and their recollection of events is very liable to be influenced by conversation with persons who have an interest in those events. But when their evidence is clear, you are to act upon it, uninfluenced by friendship, or any unwillingness to convict any one of crime. It is difficult to explain what is conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, but we may say it is such a conviction as would induce you to hazard upon it your dearest rights.

An important duty of the jury is to reconcile conflicting testimony. Upon examination, what appears conflicting, may often be reconciled. You are to exercise your common sense in this matter, and to suppose that witnesses are mistaken, rather than corrupt. But when the testimony is irreconcilable, you may judge much from the appearance of witnesses, from the intrinsic credibility of the testimony, and from the surrounding circumstances, whether corroborative or otherwise. Witnesses are rather to be weighed than numbered. All your inquiries, in this case, are to be, do any of the notes, No. 1, 2, 3, correspond with any of the counts in the indictment? If any one of them so correspond, you are to convict the defendant accordingly; if no one of them so correspond, you are to acquit him.

The jury brought in a verdict of guilty. Exceptions were taken to the ruling of the court.

JUDGES IN MAINE AND WISCONSIN. The Hon. Ether Shepley, of Portland, justice of the supreme court, has been appointed chief justice of that court, in place of Hon. Ezekiel Whitman; and John Howard, Esq. of Portland, has been appointed to fill the vacancy occasioned by the promotion of Judge Shepley.

In Wisconsin, the judges of the circuit courts, who are also judges of the supreme court, are Hon. A. W. Stow, of the 4th district, chief justice; E. V. Whiton, of the 1st district; Levi Hubbell, of the 2d; C. H. Larrabee, of the 3d; and M. M. Jackson, of the 5th, justices. J. Ripley Brigham, of Madison, is clerk of the supreme court.

Obituary Notices.

IN Boston, October 14, Hon. JEREMIAH MASON, aged 81.

At a meeting of the bar of the county of Suffolk, on Tuesday morning, October 17, in the Law Library, the Hon. Richard Fletcher was appointed chairman, and Mr. George T. Cartis, secretary.

The chairman having stated that the meeting had been called to take some notice of the decease of the Hon. Jeremiah Mason, Mr. Choate rose and spoke nearly as follows:

I have supposed, sir, as you have done, that it would be the desire of the bar of Suffolk, to mark the event which has led to the call of this meeting, by something more than the accustomed and formal expression of sensibility and regret for the loss of one of its number.

Mr. Mason was so extraordinary a person; his powers of mind were not only so vast, but so peculiar; his character and influences were so weighty as well as good; he filled for so many years so conspicuous a place in the profession of the law, in public life, and in intercourse with those who gave immediate direction to pubic affairs, that it appears most fit, if it were practicable, that we should attempt to record, somewhat permanently and completely, our appreciation of him, and to convey it to others, who knew him less perfectly and less recently than ourselves. It seems to me, that one of the very few greatest men, whom this country has produced; a statesman among the foremost in a senate, of which King and Giles, in the fulness of their strength and fame, were members; a jurist who would have filled the seat of Marshall as Marshall filled it; of whom it may be said, that without ever holding judicial station, he was the author and finisher of the jurisprudence of a state; one whose intellect, wisdom, and uprightness, gave him a control over the opinions of all the circles in which he lived and acted, of which we shall scarcely see another example, and for which this generation and the country are the better to-day: - such seems to me to have been the man who has just gone down to a timely grave. I rejoice to know that the eighty-first year of his life found his marvellous faculties wholly unimpaired.

"No pale gradations quenched that ray."

Down to the hour when the apoplectic shock, his first sickness, struck him, as it might seem, in a moment, from among the living, he was ever his great and former self.

He is dead, and although here and there, a kindred mind, here and there, rarer still, a coeval mind, survives, he has left no one, beyond his immediate blood and race, who in the least degree resembles him.

Under the influence of these opinions and wishes, the resolutions which I hold in my hand have been prepared, chiefly by others, and I have been requested to offer them to the acceptance of the bar.

Mr. Choate then moved the following resolutions, which were unanimously adopted:

Resolved, That the members of this bar have heard with profound emotion of the decease of the Honorable Jeremiah Mason, one of the most eminent and distinguished of the great men who have ever adorned this profession; and as well in discharge of a public duty, as in obedience to the dictates of our private feelings, we think it proper to mark this occasion by some attempt to record our estimate of his preeminent abilities and high character.