Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-05-14
n EXPFnT IL WRTTING.


The Court allowed the defense TO exam
Inc witness as to bis qualifications.
Mr.. Johnson-Mr. O'Connor, you were
before the Mccarthy investigation, were
YOU not, and testified. under oath, that you
were not an expert III writing?
Wimess-Ees, sir
Mr.. Johnson-It was true then, was it
not&
Witness-Yes, sir.
Mr.. Johnson-It is true now, is it not?
Witness-Yes. sir.
Judge benson argued at considerable
length to allowing witness to give expert
| testimony.
The Court said it seemed strange that the
counsel for the defense would one moment
admit the genuinsness of signature, and
the next deny it.
Judge benson began to reply to the allu-
sion made by the Court with considerable
warmth. when Judge Sullivan rather
sternly remarked, Hold on, Judge you
are addressing the Court now. Please repeat
what YOU said A little explanation fol
lowed; there seemed to be little misunder
standing all around, and what seemed tC
be an open declaration of hostilities van
ished as quickly as did the
ANTICIPATED UNPLEAsANTNEss
Between the English lion and the Russian
| bear.
After some further testimony testing the
witness expert qualifications the Court sus
| tanned the objection.
d. NJ. Burns was recalled, and produced
his discharge from the Controller for thu
fees paid into the Treasury from the Secre-
tary of States office for the month of Feb
ruary, 1882. The paper was offered in evi
dence. Defense objected. but objection
overruled Witness said he was well ac
quainted with ". B. Davies and his hand
writing He identified certain articles il
the handwriting of Davies, also some in
the handwriting of Reynolds.
Mr. O'Connor was th6n recalled, and OF
comparing the handwriting that Burns hac
testified was Davies with the word ''Febru
ary," said, in his opinion, both were writ
ten by the same person.
The writing and the word February
We're then shown to the jury, who gave it
very close inspection, by counsel on botl
sides
Mr.. O'Connor was examined at lengtl
regarding his search for the missing books
and gave the same testimony elected at tn
Burns trial, and which has heretofore beel
published.
General Carey opened the blo.ter at pag
155. and offered that page in evidence, say
|
leaves preceding this page had been cut out
He said they should maintain that Reyn
olds' appointment and oath of office ha
been recorded
IN THESE MISSING PAGES.
And the defendant had something to d
with their disappearance.
Johnson objected on the grounds that
was irrelevant, immaterial and incompe
tent and had nothing to do with the matte
at issue. If counsel wished to introduc
any part of the book, the whole book mus
be placed in evidence.
General Carey said the defense could pu
the whole book in evidence if they so de
: sired, but page 155 was sufficient for thei
purpose They proposed to show that de
, PENDANT had not only kept false account
; and embezzled moneys, but that he ha
, also mutilated the records of the State.
Mr. Johnson-The indictment in thi
case is numbered 522. 1t does not max
: any difference in this case how mucI
General Carey or tie District Attorney ca
, charge upon the defendant, that he la
falsitied the record, or that he has mutt
lated this book, and that they can prove il
! We are not here to answer this charge A
a matter of fact, it is not true. The learne
counsel for the prosecution know that 1t
5 not true, and they know that they shout
not make any such statement in the pres
ence of the jury. l cannot ascribe tn
motive of the learned counsel for the pros
: ecution on the other side acting so viz
dictivelv, unless l ascribe it to the nature
ambition of young man over-anNious
convict somebody. For some reason ur
known to me and this people they hay
, thrown over one case and are now attemp
: ing to make Thomas III. Reynolds tn
l iscapegoat for the whole transaction.
/ they propose to try this man for series {
crimes not charged in the indictment, Ii
| them specify them.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
; |. On the re-assembling of Court, Geners
Carey argued in favor of the admission 6
, evidence of page los of the blotter. He the
read from State Controller Dunn's report
number of items of money collected durin
the first few days defendant was i'll th
Office. They amounted to quite lar2
sum, and had evidently been entered o
, the pages of the blotter now missing TIL,
, money had never been accounted for I
|, the State These, he held, were sgnificar
facts-circumstances which show that th
mutilating of records was designed to d
away with certain matters recorded in IL