The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-09-14
A PARTIAL
VICTORY FOR
MRS. CRAVEN
Fair, has the burden of proof in esta blish-
Continued from First Page.

consideration OF the Jurors. The matter
Of experts was next reached, and Carvalho,
Ames and Gum pei were referred to in this
manner:
The law of this State provides that evidence
respecting the handwriting or person may
be given by comparison made by witnesses or
by the jury with writing admitted or treated
as genuine by the party against whom the
evidence is offered or proved TO be genuine TO
the satisfaction OF the Judge. In order to
make this comparison with disputed writings
OF James &. Fair and CT the defendant num-
Der OF writings OF those persons were intro
duced in evidence as the ir genuine handwrlt-
ings For the purpose OF proving that the dis
puted writings in the one case were torgerles
and III the other case they were genuine, the
plaintiffs and the intervenor called several
witnesses rs experts on handwriting. These
witnes es were permitted TO express heir
opinions and to state their reasons therefor.
You To judge of the value OF this evidence
as you are TO judge OF al. the other ev dence
in the case. The expression OF an opinion is
not the statement of fact, and opinions, as
sal d by our supreme Court, must be brought
to the test OF facts" You yourse YES are en-
titled to make the comparisons of the disputed
with the genuine writings.
There was no presumption against the
validity of deed. continued the court,
because the parties stood in no tduciary
relation 10 each other, or because there
was no consideration mentioned in The
document. A lengthy summary of the
rules of evidence followed.
Concluding Judge Slack said:
Did James g. Fair sign the two pencil deeds?
This is the first question to be answered by
you. The deeds bear date the 9Th day OF Sep
| TENDER, 1894. There is no evidence that any
one saw him sign his name TO the deed. The
evidence of the defendant is to the effect tn |
the deeds were delivered to her by the hnnd of
Fair at her residence, No. 2007 California
street, in this city, the Oath day OF Sep
TENDER, 1894, alter he had finished writing
the so-caled ''pencil WILL Evidence of the
plain tiffs and the intervenor is TO the effect
that Fair was not at the defendants re >ideEce
oil The oath day of September, 1894 nor in
San Francisco, but at San Rafael that the Sig
natures 10 the deeds are iorgefies; that the
pencil will is forgery; and that the Sea led
''repu blcation letter. OF December 16 1894
is forgery. ii, from this evidence OF the
plaintiffs, and OF the interver or, and from all
Other evidence in the case, you are satisfied
| that James g. Fair did not sign the deeds,
then your answer to the Fl rst question must be
mo-; buV if the plaintiffs and intervenor
| have not established 10 your satisfaction by q
preponderance OF the evidence that Fair aid
! sign the deeds, then you should answer the
| first question eyes"
The next question is, were the deeds ac-
knowledged by James G. Fair on the 9th day
OF Septem Der, 1894, efore J. J. Cooney, a
notary public? Witnesses for the defendant
vhrIouSly swear that the deeds
knowledged; that Fair was seen at Cooney's
Office on that day, ana that ne was seen enter
ing on that day No. IL Montgomery street, in
which Cooney's Office was Evidence of the
were not SO acknowledged because Fair was
not at No. IL Montgomery street on September
81, 1894, and because the certificates OF sc-
acknowledgement affixed TO the deeds We're not
printed prior to January s, 1896. In this con-
nection wish to call your attention to the
law of this State, which provides that GER
! titcate OF acknowledg attached TO coii-
| yeyance OF real estate furnishes pcima iacle
! evidence OF the execution OF the conveyance
| that is, evidence which sutfices for the proof
| of the execution, its signature and delivery
a tod
come by other evidence. This rule OF the law
is to be considered by you in determining the
first question
The law of this State also provides that it
shall be presumed that official duty has been
regularly performed, ana that a person is in
nocent OF certain crime or wrong, but that
these prt sumptlons may be controyerted by
other evidence. 1t IS necessary for the pla in
tff> and the iniervenor to overcome these pre-
| SYMPTOMS and TO establish by preponderance
OF evidence that the deeds were SO acknowl-
edged. Ii they have done this, then yonr an
swer to the second question should be Mo-
but II they have Iiied 10 do this your an
swer should be Eyes" Let me here recall for
your consideration the statement OF the de-
tendant TINT the deeds were returned to her
after Sal urday, December %, 1894 the testi-
mony OF William Hennessey that ne received
package from Fair Tor the defendant III the
latter part OF the month of December, 1894.
the testimony OF Mrs Purcell and OF Mrs
Johnson that they saw the deeds shortly be-
lore Chris imas, 1894. and the testimony OF
other witnesses VINO say they saw the deeds
with certificates of acknowledgment attached
in 1898, and, on the otner hand, the test
mony OF the witnesses OF the plaintiffs and
the interveuor that Fair was seized with his
mortal illness on the evening OF sunday, De-
cember %, 1894. from which he died OH Fri
day, December %.
The third and last question for you to an
swer is: Was there conspiracy he tween the
defendant, Elizabeth Haskins, James J.
COoney and others. for the purpose OF procur-
ing for themselves by means of forged docu-
meDts and false evidence, the real property
described IN the complaint in intervention?
The intervenor mus: have established to your
| satisfa ctlon by preponderance of evidence
the existence of such conspiracy in order to
entitle her to your answer Yes TO this ques-
ton. # she has not esta blished the existence
OF the conspiracy then your answer mus; be
'No.' IA conspiracy is ombination OF two
or more persons by concerted acton to ac-
eomplish II criminal or unlawful purpose, or
nal or unlawful means" There must, then
ITO constitute conspiracy, be guilty com
blnatlon OF two or more persons"
1t was said by an eminent Federal Judge, in
this State, FEW years ago, that lit is not
necessary 10 constitute Il conspiracy, that two
or more persons should meet together and eu-
ter into an explicit or formal agreement for
an unlawful scheme. or that they should di-
rectly or by words in writing, state what that
unlawful scheme was to be, and the details of
the plan or means by which the unlawful
com bination was to be made effective. II is
sufficient If two or more persons in any man
ner, or through any contrivance, positively or
taclty come 10 m tual understanding To &C
CON lish common and unlawful desi gu"
In conclusion, the plaintiffs and the inter
venor asks YOU 10 answer the first and the
second questions mo" and the intervenor
asks you to answer the third question Yes !;
while The defendant asks you to answer the
first and second questions Yes" and the
third question mo" Your answers are to be
agreed upon by nine or more of your humber,
and to be signed by your foreman 10 be Sc
lected by you. The issues are now with you.
1t was 5 minutes 20 2 o'clock when the
Jury retired and elected Isaac s. Rosen-
baum foreman and W. H. Tiffany secre-
tary. They TOOK with them TO The jury
room the original copy of the pencil deed,
the letter Of republica ton OF the so-caIled
PENCIL will and various checks that James
Fair had drawn i'll his lifetime.
Later in the afternoon they called for
copies of what is known as the Croker
blank and the waiting spectators and law
yers began to prepare for Il long siege. An
hour later they called for the trust will,
aud it began to look as If they were going
10 prepare treatise on Fairs peculiarities
of chirography.
As the hours slipped by the crowd
thinned out. Six O'clock found both
Judge, juries ana lawyers hungry and
weary. and the court ordered a two-hour
recess. The jurors were taken TO Mar
Ket-street restaurant. under the surveil-
10 moo of n po~sa of Ia univ SheriffS