The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-02-21

Knight and Captain Lees were thera for
tne prosecution. Carrot McEnernev and
Richard V. Dey looked on for the admin
istratOrs.
The decision was a lengthy one, and
consumed almost two hours in reading.
Judge Cook opened by a rehearsal of the
aw on perjury. He told the LAWYERS
that ne had spent two whole days reading
the volumlnous evidence bearing on tn e
case. The man who was prosecuting
might be rich, said the magistrate, but
that was no reason why poor man be
was prosecuting should escape being
found guilty.
80 far as | am concerned the pauper
and the millionaire are one and the sam e
to me, added Judge Cook.
1t was necessary, he continued, on a
charge OF perjury, to have the testimony
OF two witnesses or one witness and cor
roborating circumstances. Circumstan-
tlal or documentary evidence alone would
not fit the case. Judge Cook then re-
viewed the evidence given by Herbert
Clark, the former valet OF the million
aire. Clark, so the court thought, gave a
satisfactory account of the doinrs of the
bonanza king on September u, 1894
Clark did not remem Der that Fair Wis.,
tied the young notarys office on that day,
although his evidence showed that his en-
ployer was several times in his movements
business. Cooney himself said the court,
corroboratcd this story to a certain extent
when he said he was not personally &C
quainted with the millionaire.
Judge COOK went on TO say thar the
record of the transaction in Cooney's book
seemed 10 have some evidence OF chan e
of figures in the date lines. He also though
two kinds OF inkhad been used in the ce r
tihcates on the deeds.
The different witnesses from the Crocker
printing house, who were called by the
prosecution TO prove that on Januasy s.
1885, lot of blanks contained the worus
"to me" were of little value in the case
except to recall that these blanks con-
tanned man. typographical effects.
The prosecution had pointed out over
sixty of these defects IN these blanks,
which il claimed were Identical with faults
in printing in the certificates on the PEN
Gil deeds. Cooney's attorneys had found
as many ''dissimilarities.
"Iu one place on line eleven the attor-
neys for the defense pointed out twenty
nine dots in blank space" said Judge
Cook, where but twenty-eight dots were
visible in the proof of the Crocker blank
of January g. 1896 For long time this
discrepancy puzzled me. ! could not see
how the extra dot could creep into the
certificate, and | was Oh the point OF
throwing all this evidence out when. by
the AID oil very powerful microscope
discovered just the faintest indication OF
this extra dot IN the Croker proof.
then examined the matr;x and found that
it existed there, although imperfectly. The
other discrepancies which the defendants
attorneys declare exist l think NAV be
the result of i'm perfe ctions In the paper on
which the proof was taken and the man
ner in which the proof was taken"
The court then formally denied the
motion to dismiss the young notary,
at is not my duty to determine whether
the defendant be guilty OF the crime
charged, or not" judge Cook said in final
explanation of his finding. This is
merely preliminary examination and |
am not required 10 look for proof. 1t is
the existence or Hon-exisIence of testi-
mony tending TO esta bIish probable cause
for one to believe him guilty that / am
called upon to determine. Whether such
testimony proves guilt, in other words
whether il is to be believed, is a question
for jury 10 pass upon, not ]"
When the decision mad been read At
torney Reddy rose in reply to the court
reference TO the rich and poor. Reddy
said he never contended for moment
that because a man was wealthy it was
any reason why ne should not have the
protection of the court against crime. az
spoke merely of the power of wealthy
Brookman, senior warden; Charles j.