This was not so simple a matter as it is now when amateur photography is a disease common to so many; but I found the professor prepared for it. I myself carried the note in question to the room he had fitted up for such purposes, and he made me measure carefully the angles at which the views were taken, "because," he said, "a photograph may be made to lie almost as easily as a fool."
After that he took views of some of the others which I chose at random, taking care that they were made at the same angles and under the same conditions. On the next day they were finished and mounted, and I returned to the city with copies in my possession. I had been absent from the office just a week when I made my report to Mr. Gauge, and rendered an itemized account of expenses amounting to less than ten dollars. I flatter myself this made a good impression on the "old man," but he said nothing about it, at the time.
The case of Haskell vs. Oliver came on for trial before a referee a few weeks afterwards. It was based on a note for seventeen thousand five hundred dollars, purporting to have been given by James M. Oliver to Martin Hodge, and by him assigned for value before maturity, to Charles Haskell. The execution of the note was denied. The reference was held in the luxurious offices of Hyde & Tanner, the senior partner of which firm was the referee. I was subpœnaed for the plaintiff, and attended Mr. Swallow, carrying the same tin box I had watched over at the professor's.
The plaintiff was a blonde young man from Michigan, a lumber-dealer, who testified that he received the note in due course of business. He did not know Mr. Hodge, except by correspondence. Had heard that he was dead. The note being protested, he had paid it and come on and presented it personally to the defendant, who refused to pay it. He had seen Mr. Oliver's signature, and believed this to be his,—had no doubt of it, in fact. On cross-examination he stated carelessly that his business amounted to several hundred thousand dollars a year, and he judged Mr. Oliver's signature as he would that of any other man he had seen write and had correspondence with. Did not remember that he had ever seen Mr. Oliver until his refusal to pay the note. Had seen his writing several times before. Did not pretend to be expert enough to tell why he believed the signature genuine.
This was our case. Mr. Swallow chuckled complacently as he announced that we would rest, thus throwing the onus entirely upon the defendant, who had to sustain his affirmative plea. It was evidently a surprise to the defence. So it was to me; for I did not think any man would have sworn so positively to the essential fact.
Mr. Oliver was the first witness for the defence. He denied the signature and all knowledge of the note. There was a squabble as to whether he could testify that he had never given a note to Hodge, under the celebrated section in regard to "transactions with, or declarations of, a deceased party," of our code: Mr. Swallow contending that if the witness had a right to deny any transactions with a deceased person he had a right to describe any he might have had, which the statute plainly forbids. The referee admitted the testimony, and Mr. Swallow took an
