The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-05-07
NOT ARIAL BL AbKS
STILL THE THEME
1t Was Another Quiet Day
for the Fair.Craven
Case.
The Attorneys Still Fencing
Over the Admissibility
of Eviderc,.
Witness Stanford at Last Leaves tn
Stand, but Only to Be Succeeded
by More Crock r Employees

Until the attorneys for the fair estate
executors either succeed in or abandon
their efforts to place before the court and
jury line of evidence that has in the past
two days been repeatedly ruled to be mad
misslble the proceedings in the suit TO TEST
the validity of Mrs. Nettie Craven's DEEDS
are not destined TO interest to any start
ling degree the general public.
Yesterdays session, like that OF the pre-
yious day, was taken up by another duel
between those masters of legal lore, D. NJ.
Delmas and Garret McEuerney, over these
Crooker notarial blanks. The latter gen.
tleman was as persistent as ever in his
attempts to lay foundation for the intro
ducIion of evidence which he claims will
tend TO show that Notary Cooney's &C
Knowledgm OF Mrs. Craven's deeds in
1894 were executed on blanks printed over
year later, and Mr.. Delmas seemed to
be as successful as ever in parrying off
these thrusts and In worrying the oppos-
ing side almost into state OF exaspera-
ton.
William E. Stanford, the legal-blank
clerk OF the II. s. Croker Company sta
tionery and printing establishment, was
again on the witness-stand when Judge
Slack opened court in the morning. Stan
ford started off by asking permi sion to
correct a statement he made yesterday
afternoon. On that occasion he said he
was not positive his employer, c. II.
Croker, had seen the blanks which were
produced in court. What he wished to
say now was that he was sure Mr.. Croker
had seen the blanks.
In answer to Mr.. McEnerney's ques-
lions Stanford said he could easily den
tifv one OF Crocker's nota ia1 blanks of
the issue OF January s, 1896 because OF a
defective letter "o' that appeared thereon.
Mr.. McEnerney then returned TO his
old effort 10 get one OF the blanks in evil
dence, but met with the objection that
had bios ked him for two days. Mr.. Del
mas asserted that, unless it were shown
that the original blank which MIR. Crocker
had inspected could be shown to have been
lost or destroyed, Standards testimony
was not of value i'll helping the copy into
evidence. In this he was once more sus-
tanned by the court. Then Mr.. Delmas
BEGAN lenient to the other side, and said
if they only wanted 20 show there was a
defective letter in the sample blank shown
in court he would not object
The attorneys for the plaintiffs heaved
signs of relief at this, and the sample was
handed to the jury.
The loophole was not so wide as It
looked, however for when Mr.. McEnerney
sOuSAl " nave CldHiOiu say ludt Tue ue-
fects in the sample were the same as hose
Mr.. Crocker had called attention to, he
encountered another objection and was
unable to get over 1t. Then he gave up
try ing for while and Mr.. Delmas suo-
iected Stanford to another cross Exam ina
ton.
He showed by referring to the young
blank clerks evidence in the Cooney ex-
animation that he was not telling the
same story now. Stan1ord's explanation
of this was that his memory was at fault.
He said, however, that he thought his
previous testimony was more reliable than
that he was giving.
At the opening of the afternoon session
Attorney Delmas handed to Stanford what
to all appearances was a notarial blank
emanating from the II. s. Crocker Com
pany establishment. Stanford was adj