The San Francisco call., 1896-04-15

statement of Mr.. Ross on the witness
stand as 10 the offer OF compensation for
the loss of time. That was within the time
limit allowed by law.
Mr.. Delmas recalled an instance where
General Barnes had himself referred to
this offer. He should not then complain
OF his (DelmasO use of it. The fact was,
he said. the big corporation was willing to
recognize and pay damages provided they
were very small.
Judge Daingerfield allowed the ques-
tions as asked, reasoning somewhat as fol-
lows:
The evidence is here that the plaintiff
is considerable of traveller. The same
set OF circumstances applying to the case
OF some other man who had travelled little
would properly exclude this line of ques-
tlonlng. But we must suppose that he is
familiar with the requirements of rail-
roads IN selling the class of ticket he held
and the precautions deemed necessary to
be taken by the railroad company against
imposition and loss through the traffic in
the same"
And so the inquiry was continued
through long explanation of the scalp
inc business.
Witnesses as to handwriting kept the
stand all the afternoon. George Grant,
acting teller of the Nevada Bank, and w.
A. Stlnson, paying teller at the Anglo
California Bank, testified that they would
not pay money on any draft confronted
with such discrepancy of signatures as the
various writings of plaintiff exhibited.
Carl Eisenschimmel, expert on handwrit-
ing as well as expert witness, amused and
entertained the crowded courtroom with a
detailed study of the signatures he had
made. He presented enlarged photo
graphs of the various signatures and from
the up and down strokes thus clearly
shown descanted on the "habits'' of the
writer which the lines conveyed to him.
Having explained how the pen must
nave been held to write the characters,
ana how certain of the sinews labored
explained that all OF them must have been
written by the same man, and that all ex-
cept those on the ticket were evidently an
attempt to disguise the hand.
Cross-examining, Delmas called etten-
tlon to the differences between the sigma
lures on the two sides of the ticket one
using the Greek &C." the other not. Here
long discussion arose as to which was the
front and which the back Of the ticket.
The court suggested to the witness that
ne use the words diverse and reverse to
distinguish them
"We will cali them front and back; /;
that is PLAIN Eaglish," said Delmas.
draft was submitted to the witness,
dated previous to the date of the ticket,
WHICH pore the signature ana the name OF
bank III the plaintiffs handwriting and
which presented the very differences in
style and formations OF capital letters as
marked the signature in question, and
upon which the witness had lain stress as
showing conclusively an attempt to dis
gulse the hand.
Elsenschimmel at once said the writing
was by the same hand, but declared this,
too, was an attempt to disguise the hand.
You mean to say that this man has
disguised his hand on draft to be pre-
sented to his own bankers for payment?'
The witness after some qulbbling de-
clared fatty, II say now this is not dis
guIsed hand, but simply change of style. :"
The case will be resumed to-day.