The San Francisco call., 1897-07-29
EXPERTS AMES
AND CARVALHO
The Former Says Mean
Things About the
Latter.
Only an inexperienced Picture
Taker in a New York
Gallery.
a Ghost of the Whitman Brooklyn
Forgery Trial Appears in the
Figel Case.

Daniel T. Ames of New York, the ex-
pert examiner of forged and disputed
handwriting, who arrived here to testify
in the Craven suit, with Expert Carvalho,
was called upon yesterday by the prosecu-
tion in the trial of Theodore A. Figel.
The Isaac Hoffman receipt ioT $500 was
the subject under scrutiny, the witness
disagreeing radically with his associate,
Carvalho, as to the genuineness OF the
signature.
Witness refused to express his opinion
of David Carvalho as an expert, prefer
ring to acknowledge that their profession
was not an exact science.
II would not place it alongside OF math-
ematics, for instance" added the witness.
"But look here, professor" asserted the
court, Il would like to know more about
Professor Carvalho."
There was a general objection on the
part OF the prosecution, and the court ex-
planned its reason for seeking informa-
tion. ''Au noon to-day [ asked Professor
Ames a bout Carvalho, and he SAID that
lie had no very great experience as al ex-
pert; that he was only picture-taker in
the witness gallery.
"Carvalho," d" continued Judge Campbell,
examined the receipt In my presence
last week, and, having finished, retired to
the other emo of the room with Judge
LouderbacK. | did not learn then OF his
decision, and, as he was not called 10 the
stand, but went East, | surmised that his
opinion was ad verse TO the defense until
l was confronted with his letter that he
regarded the signature as genuine"
1t was finally decided to strike out all
testimony IN regard 10 Caryalho.
taf faI hnt iv dnllV-
cred in o nun ber Of cases, had been re-
versed. However, in these cases he had
delivered no positive opinion.
The defense endeavOred TO get in evil
dence through the witness as 20 his con-
nection with the Alonzo Whitman case
some years ago in New York. Whitman,
so 1t is told, was in trouble with the banks
of New York and Brooklyn.
The expert testimony of Ames had vir-
tually convicted him OF forgery until the
defendants attorney, who knew of
Brooklyn preacher whose writing resem-
bled Whitman's, wrote to him a letter that
brought back an answer. Part of the lat
ter was shown to Expert Ames, who said
it was in Whitman's handwriting. The
pre- acher was put on the stand and
acknowledged the authorship, and the in
security of expert testimony caused re-
versaI of the situation, Whitman being
promptly acquitted.
When General Barnes asked Ames
about his connection with the Whitman
case he testified that only two words of
the letter had been shown 10 him, and
these be declared might have been writ
ten by Whitman, but he did not make
positive assertion of opinion.
As corroborativs OF his opinion that the
$500 receipt was forgery, witness illus
traled on the black board how each letter
of the signature differed in characteristics
to the letters in the signatures accepted as
genuine In addition, he pointed out that
the signature had been written on the re-
ceIpt first. after which the paper had been
folded to be reopened later, when the
body OF the receipt was written. The fold
ing of the receipt, according to the wit
ness, disturbed the fiber of the paper to
sufficient extent that where the ink passed
over the folds 1t was Dsorbed and showed
on the other side. Four tiny specks OF
dark color were observable under the mag
nifying glass to prove or corroborate the
opinion of the witness.
On ncross-examinaticn, however, General
Barnes brought out that only four specks
could be observed, while there were nine
places where writing had been done over
the cTeases. The witness accounted for
this on the presumption that the otEer
places had been touched with blotting
pad, while the four that appear linked es-
capped the pad.
This linking proposition on the back OF
the receipt is viewed in two ways accord
ing to whether it is the prosecutions or
the defenseS point of vantage that is
taken.
The defense has already established that
the receipt had been taken from Fig
against his Will by Edward S. Rothchild.
Since that time the defendants demand
for its return has been denied, and a few
days ago the court took the document
into its possession to be handled hence
forth only when in open court. The de-
fense now views with sus picion the black
specks that appear on the back of the re-
ceipt, as they believe they might have
been placed there after the paper left
FigePs hands.
The case will be resumed this morning.