The morning call., 1893-07-21
Damaging Testimony
Against Jefferis.
BETRAYED BY HIS WRITING.
Expert Miller Makes Comparisons of
the Various Signatures of the
Accused Engineer.
Special to The MORNING CALL.

SACRAMENTO. July 2O.-Another large
crowd attended the trial of George B.
Jefferis, the locomotive engineer. charged
with bigamy. The most damaging testi-
mony against the defendant was given by
Frank Miller. president OF the D. O. Mills
bank. He swore that in his capacity as
banker he is frequently called upon 10
pass on the signatures OF different per-
sons.
Mr. Miller was shown the signatures Of
Miss Ayers and identified them as by the
same person. One Of the specimens was
on letter written from Auburn to San
Francisco minister.
He was asked to compare the registered
name Of Jefferis in the Arcade Hotel
register with that of Jefferis in the mar
riage-license affidavit-book of the county
of San Fran cisco of the date OF July Z,
1885,
"Were they written by the same
person."
"Yes; think they are the writings of
the same person. Both are written In the
same hand"
Samples OF handwriting were then
showed to each of the jurors. Mr. Miller
kept the stand and proceeded to define
the peculiarities which distinguished the
signatures and which he said ap-
peared in both. The San Mateo
records were produced and also the
signature of Eugene q. Jefferis.
as shown on the marriage license
book. Mr.. Miller said his opinion was
that the San Mateo signature was written
by the person who signed himself George
r. Jefferis in the San Francisco book.
The final "r'S" in the signature OF u. ID.
Jefferis and that of Eugene G. Jefferls had
a general similarity. He noticed in botn
a tendency Of the writer to 60 above the
line toward the latter part Of the sigma
ture.
The license book containing Jefferis'
name when he applied for license to
marry Nellie Eby. and also the San Fran
cisco license-book bearing his signature
we're shown to witness. His judgment was
that both were written by the same person.
1t was very evident that this testimony
was about the climax of the prosecutions
case and that it would make an impress
sion.
There could be no doubt that Mr.. Mil
ler's manner was very positive. although
when Attorney Hart cross-examined him
he admitted that he had cashed checks
with forged signatures On them OF persons
with whom he had intimate acquaintance.
Hart asked him If he recalled the crcum
stance in the Sharon case when he was
shown forged copy of his own signature
and he declared it was genuine.
Mr.. Miller said he remembered the cir
cumstance.
There was recess of five minutes. dur
ing which Mr.. Miller was allowed to COM
pare the signatures submitted to him at
first with number of signatures which the
defense admitted were his own.
AS a result of the inspection Mr.. Miller
said, on croSs-examiDatlon. when the ses-
sion was resumed, that the fin al ''s" in the
San Francisco name indicted to his mind
that it was forged in the making. 1t made
some difference between that and the
other signatures. In the San Francisco
book the letters in the first word George"
were disjoiuted.
''lt might have been written by another
person." admitted Mr.. Miller.
''Is there not evidence of care in the San
Francisco signature"
"Yes. there is. It was written with
care"
"You will notice peculiarity in the
letter G."
"Yes. there is a tremor in the lower part.
You see that in many signatures"
In stating what he thought about
probable forgery. MIR. Miller said he
would regard such question in a COM
merclal way, that is, he would consider
what amount the forger had in view as a
reward for his forgery. If it were a valua-
BILE prize more care would be taken. In
forgery cases mere comparison of sigma
lures is not final. 'You must take into
consideration all the attendant circum-
stances you can learn about before pass
ing judgment" said Mr.. Miller.
On redirect examination Mr.. Miller said
in the length of time he had been in the
banking business. over twenty years, he
had cashed but two or three forged
checks. "a PERSONS signature might
change with the lapse of years." he added,
'and consequent change OF habits. Gen.
orally, however, a persons signature
remains substantially the same though
there are very many variations in writ
ing"
Mr.. Miller summed up his testimony by
declaring his belief that the license ap-
plication signatures shown him we're
written by the same person.
FIERY WAsHINGTONIANs.