The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-05-06
A DAY OF SHARP
LEGAL FENCING
Notarial Blanks Are Not
Yet Evidence in the
Fair Case.
Attorneys for Mrs. Craven
Cleverly Outpoint the Op.
posing Forces.
Clerk Stanford of the H. S. Croker
Company Was on the Stan1
Throughout the Session.

Craven case were dull and devoid OF
interest. Just one witness, William E.
Stanford of the H. S. Croker Company,
occupied the stand throughout the day,
and his was not a new face, for it had
been seen in court on the two previous
days of the hearing and both times as
witness And besides his testim ony de-
veloped nothing of a startling value.
But. while the case was apparently
dragging and dronIng and the same ques-
tons were seemingly being asked over
and over again, and the same arguments
being made by the attorneys, there was
an undercurrent-purely technical and at
times almost indistinguishab le-in motion
which when analysed exposed one of the
prettie.t contests of legal fencing that has
taken place in a local courtroom for years.
In fact one OF the most important battles
of the trial was waging, and while victory
seems to perch upon the defense's stand
ard the smoke has not yet cleared away
and there will be more OF it to-day when
Judge Slack bugles the charge.
1t was ali over the attempts of the at
torneys for executors Of the Fair estate
the plaintiffs in this action 10 determine
the validity OF Mrs. Nettie Craven's deeds
to Two valuable parcels OF property claimed
by the estate-to squeeze IN evidence that
was declared by the court to be inadmis-
sible.
They tried and tried, by every hook
and crook, by every play known to the
game of law, to achieve their purpose, and
were still pegging away when the adjourn
ment was taken.
1t was thus that the entire day slipped
away and nothing was accomplished prac-
tically, save the mastery defense put I'D
TO- Tod h1y
D. NJ. Delmas.
The evidence sought to be interjected
was that by which the plaintiffs side de-
sired TO prove that Notary j. ]. Cooney's
Acknowledgements of Mrs. Craven's deeds
were executed on blanks that were printed
by the Crocker establishment several
months after the date OF those acknowl-
edgmepts and at time when Cooney had
ceased to be a notary. This evidence
comprises copies OF those blanks, and
proofs also, which are alleged to show
typographical defects peculiar only to the
series printed on that subsequent date.
The story of the plaintiffs side is that
Captain Lees OF the Police Department
and others discovered these defects, and
that Witness Stanford also noted them.
Attorney McEnerney's energies were GEN.
tered in endeavoring 10 prove the alleged
fact by Stanford, and thus save Lees from
the torture OF the witness-stand. 1t seems
TO be foregone conclusion that the new
Chief of Police will not take the stand I'M
less his presence is absolutely necessary,
for every body knows that be will be in for
great scorching at the hands of the de-
tense if he takes the step. This because
the charge has already been made by the
attorneys for Mrs. Craven that Lees and
other officers under him, in the employ of
the City, have been taking sides IN the
case, despite the fact that 1t is merely
civil proceeding.
But Stanford was not equal to the occa-
sion and the day was lost TO the plain
tiffs. This witness was willing enough,
but his testimony proved to be of a hear
say nature and was therefore not ad-
mitted despite the frantic efforts made to
get it in.
Attorney Piersen was still on the sick
list when court opened yesterday morn
ing, so Carrot McEnerney acted as chief
counsel and questioner for the plaintiffs
Judge benson did the c-oss-examining
for the defense during the forenoon, but
was succeeded in the later session by Mr..
Delmas. Stanford's testimony under the
forenoon cross-examination was in chief
as to the details of conducting the legal
blank department IN the Croker estab-
lishment.
Gu redirect examination Stanford pro-
duced a copy OF a notarIal blank that was
printed after January 8. 1896. 1t went
into evidence without objection.
An effort was then made to put into evil
dence StaEford's order book, but an obiec-
ton met it, and there was quite an argu-
ment. As it was now tins for the noon
recess, Judge SLACK said he would not de-
eide the point until court reconvened.
In the afternoon he gave his ruling on
the objection to the offer OF the entry
book. His Honor said he had carefully
looked up the authorities, and was salts
fed that the objection to the book was
good and should be sustained.
Mr.. McEnerney essayed by several diff
ferent routes known to the craft to get the
book in, but all to no purpose. The book
had to stay out.
Stanford was asked to positively IDENTIFY
the proof of an acknowledgment blank
that was printed ON or about the 9Th of
January, 1896. In doing this he endeav-
ored to get in some additional evidence,
and had to be admonished by the court
Stanford then said ne could only recog-
nize and identity the proof because he re-
mem bered having looked it up in Novem-
Der, 1896, for Attorney Pierson, and hav-
ing with him compared it with a blank
that had been used as the original COPY.
Mr.. McEnerney then offered the proof in
evidence, but met with another objection.
An argument followed in which Messrs.
Delmas, Wheeler and McEnerney INDUCED
in some clever legal fencing. Mr.. Nc
Enerney announced that he proposed to
prove the proof of The copies printed in
January, 1896, would show certain defects
in type and general construction that ap-
pear on the Cooney acknowledgment al
legged 10 have been executed in Septem-
Der, 1894 This, he declared, would be
strong evidence that rhe deeds held bv
Mrs. Craven were not genuine.
Mr.. Delmas objected TO this statement.
He said Mr.. McEnerney had no right to
talk that way in the presence OF the Jury.
"a superficial scrutiny OF this proof and
blank" he said, will render what was a
bungling imitation appear to be identical.
Others have made more careful ex-
animation of them than has Mr. Nc
Enerney and have found them to be
wholly different--and very poor imita-
ton at that. What does this witness
know about this proof? He cannot swear
that it is proof at all. He says he found
it in a package IN the printing-room and
does not know whether it is the original
proof or one put there subsequently for O
purpose"
Judge Slack ruled that Mr.. Delmas was
right and would not ad nit the proof
Stanford now went back to Mr.. Delmas
for another siege of cross-examination.
In answer to that gentleman's questions
he said that some time after Mr.. Person
visited the stationery-store G. Ii. Crocker
directed him to open some packages of
the reserve stock of acknowledgment