The record-union., 1896-07-21
WHO DEPACED THE HOUSES /?
Tom Graham on Trial for Very Ma
liCiOuS Mischief.
Max Gumpel. the Writing Expert.
Says It is Graham's Hand
Writing.

The case of Thomas Graham. charged
with malicious mischief, now on trial
in the Police Court before jury, bids
fair to develop into strong legal bat
tie. Briefly outlined, the case is as fol-
lows: Graham is a painter, Formerly IN
the employ of the Sullivan-Kelly Com
pany, but was discharged by Alfred ).
Baker, foreman of the painting depart
ment Shortly after his discharge,
some unknown person entered the un-
finished residence at 1905 P street and
oneon the south side of M street, between
Fourth and Fifth streets, both Of which
were undergoing painting by the firm.
and defaced the doors and other pOr-
tions of the houses.
In both instances the guilty person
wrote scurrilous things on the walls
about Baker, and it is also Gained
that the scribblings are in the same
handwriting as the signature of Thomas
Graham on the time-cards which in the
past he had presented to the firm for
payment.
The first witness called yesterday was
Max Gumpel, the San Francisco ex-
pert on writing, who stated that by
profession he was a photographer, but
that for thirty years he had been at
times engaged in giving expert testi-
mony in cases where the authenticity
of handwriting had been questioned.
He stated that he had been retained in
the celebrated Sharon, Bloomberg,
Dana, Root and hundreds of other
cases, and that his testimony was al
ways accepted as that of an expert.
He then testified that the writings on
the walls, doors, drawers, etc, Of the
houses was the same as the signatures Of
Graham on the latter's time-cards.
Under cross examination he stated
that he had been engaged by Charles
K. Lipman, Manager of the Sullivan
Kelly Company, to make an examina-
ton of all the handwritings in this mat
ter at a stipend of $50 per day and all
expenses.
To a question by Frank S. Sprague,
attorney for the defendant, as to wheth-
er or not he had ever given an expert
decision in conflict with the interests Of
the one who employed him, he stated
that he had in several cases, notably
in the Sharon case, in which he had
been engaged by General Barnes, attor-
ney for Sharon
This line of examination being
objected to by the City Attorney. .Sprague
show by the witness that in every case
in which he had been employed he had
invariably rendered a decision in his
employers interest.
The attorneys for Graham then re-
quested that the witness be excused for
a while, in order that they could have
time to examine into the proper method
of making a crosS-examination.
11-io 20 1Nx-CN A ~
Brown, who stated that Gumpel, be-
ing a high priced man, it was essential
to dispense with his services as quickly
as possible, and he demanded that the
cross-examination be continued at that
time, as required by law.
At this Sprague demanded that Gum
pei be detained as a. possible witness
until such time as he might be re-
quired, and it was so ordered by the
court Gumpel left the courtroom in a
not very amiable mood.
J. J. Dwyer, a member of the firm,
testified that in the course of a con-
versation held with Graham the latter
made use of very derogatory language
toward Foreman Baker. and threaten
ed to do him bodily harm
Alfred 6. Baker testified that he had
discharged Graham, and that the latter
at the time showered upon the witness,
head all the vilest expletives Included
in the Anglo-Saxon tongue, or, for that
matter in any other voca abulary- era
ham also said that he (Baker) was en-
gagged in the occupation of pulling the
leg of John ]. Dwyer, Manager OF the
painting and decorative department OF
the firm. He had also threatened the
witness with all manner of bodily in
jury.
During the course of the trial counsei
on both sides were continually filing ob-
iections and exceptions-in fact, there
was rarely a sentence delivered by
either witness or opposing counsel
which did not elicit an objection.
At O'Clock D. m. an adjournment was
taken until this morning at 10 O'Clock.