The San Francisco call., 1897-07-01
NOW FOR some
MORE TECHNIQUE. &c l
Expert Evidence d Again s the
Theme in the f AIR
Craven Trial. +
Theodore Kytka Levels. His
Spyglasa at the Cooney
AoknoWled edgments. !.
The Duh Days Have Returned, led a. and ID
Judge Slack Gives Voice to IF. Il ...
His Impatienoe,

The evidence for the plaintiffs in: the
Fair Craven trails teing addueed in.
rather ragged form these days. .".... +:
The continued Illness #of. Mrs Craven.
prevents the attorneys from. completing.
her examination, and now the indisposi-
ton OF Lawyer Wheeler. has broken into
the questioning Of Aitken, the man who
says Mrs. Craven and Martin Kelly en-.
deayored TO coax him into giving false
evidence. Mr.. Wheeler could not be in.
attendance when the trial was resumed
yesterday, so r.. B. Mitchell and Care.
McEnerney TOOK up the#reins for The
prosecuting. side. And they were COM.
PEELED, too, to drop The line os= presenta-
tion that has OF late furnished SO rnany
interesting Incidents, and to go back to
the old humdrum Of expert evidence.
The only Tedeeming feature of the change
was that a new expert, Theod ore K ytka,
was placed on the. stand to.dolhe taking
hytka is a a1handsome e Youn G chap; but
he speaks English poorly. .a nd tits only
with he greatest.iof d difficulty that h e can.
be understood, He started in. bYidentity-:
ing some negatives he had taken Of the.
proof OF a form of.notariaf blank that had
been issued BY the Croeker Company in:
j anuary, 1856: . :@ !. c., : " ;:: =: a.. ~
A "bronIIdel' or Photographic: enlarge
ment produced from one: of these mega
tiYes was now: exhibited and Mr.. Mit-.
chell said 1t was his desire to Introduce
this in evidence Judge: benson of the
defense objected TO this, and Ten there.
was quite a long ar gum eIrt =.
Judge Slack: hnally ruled that the wit.
ness could not give. expert evidence as to
a microscopic: or other. comparison of the.
ased in the Goonev ackno wi ed gYn MT
The attorneys fer be heirs FILTERED away
the rest of"the. fore noon in: AN effort 10
dodge around the court s ruling; brt all 10
no avail Before: ordering: recess Judge
Stack administered. "a rebuke& to Messfs.
Mitchell and McEnerneyfor. rot making:
better progress. sconcIudtd By saying:
he would. insist that. the e1a mi nation OF:
the witness Aiken be resumed to-day
whether Mr.. Wheeler would be able 10 be
present or not. =: -: -: =. =. =.
: Atthe afternoon. session. Charles STAN.
ford of the Crocker stationery esta blish-
ment, was recalled to the witness=stand
and gave some more unimportant# evil
dence III regard to the batch of blanks:
that we're printed on his ordersin J anuary,
1896. =. I :
Stanford was then taken from. the stand
and Manager Charles Croekerof. the Bush
street stationery house ;:oek his place.
:. He was asked by Mr.. Deimas as 10 Il hat
became of all OF the potarial blanks he had.
gathered up for use as exhibits in tbecase,
He said he gave nearly all of them to
Captain Lees. That was all Mr.. DeImas
wanted to know; and the snowy haired
manager was allowed to go.... j ~. :. E. E. - "
- John. p. Donovan, the. man who en-:
slarged. all THE photographs of deeds, sig
natures; notarial blanks and what not,
that comprise the wagon:load of exhibits
in the case, was next called All that was
wanted of him was to id entity a cartoon
the Crocke- Company in that eventful
month of January, lastly !: .<.. H: ~
Mr.DeImas wanted to- know the object
of putting this cartoon in evidence: 1: {.
Mr. Mitchell explained that he wished
to-haye 1t handy, so that his.ex xperts could
illustrate their testimony by reference
TO it. ~ +. = + ,-. i: 5-:.. :.=
well, If that is. ii, I object to1the intro.
ductioh OF the exhibit in evidence said.
Mr.. Delmas -: 80: 49, ..: s. # :;::::-. -
Both Mitchell and McEnerrey resorted
to arguments In the hope OF beating back
the objection. 1t ayaned tbe EN-: not, for:
The courtruleG the: cartoon out as bit o f
Independent evidence. s .:= .. = E: (: (
At. this%juncture Nh. Delmas Offered to
prove; by mes MS OF Donovan IS own: tesli-.
mony, that the cartoon=was. not an accii-:
rate enlargement Of a. photog graph otfhe
Troof Of the issue OF blanks claimed 10. be
of the lot issued in Jan uary, 1896: :.* :-.=@ &
This was violently opposed by McEaer%
ney and Mitchell. They. declared. that
Donovan.*never saw the original proof
which Kytka photogra phed in: order to
produce the negative from W hich .%the
cartoon was made. He therefore could.
not testify TO anything but the negative.
and the cartoon. They said Kytka was
the only one who could talk shout the
original proof as compared with the neg.
atiye. ;.. =".. .
Mr.. Delmas said he could save the at.
torneys a good deal of worry by calling
Kytka TO the stand He would prove
what he had promised by that individual
quite as easily as he would by Don oyaii. r.
Kytka thereupon took the elevated
platform. AS soon as he was asked if the.
cartoon was an accurate enlarged repro
duction of the original proof, Mitchell and
McEnerny objected on*the ground that
Kytka had had nothing to do with the
cartoon. 1t was with them case OF
tweedled um and tweed ledee. :-:-:;. 1..r,
But the court would not tolerate this
sort of hairsplitting, and overruied the
objection. Mr.. Delmas was1n formed thai
he could question Kytka regarding all
three exhbts-the proof, the negative
and the cartoon. u
. The expert was told by Mr.. Delmas to-
carefully com pare the proof with the car.
toon. and then slate whether or not the
latter was a correct reprod de did
so. and then confessed that there were
serious defects in the big picture.
THAT is all / wanted to KNOW, SAID
Mr. Delmas.
MIichell declared that no attempt was
being made 20 palm off fraue llent
photograph upon the court and jury.
OF course not. Mr.. Delmas assured