The San Francisco call., 1897-06-08
Notary Cooney's Blanks Again
the Theme in the Fair.
Craven Trial.
Once More the Dabbllng of the Police
Depsr tment in This Civil Pre-
ceeding Comes 10 Light.

His Honor had Kept his promise to en-
deavor 10 get a little more light and
wholesome ozone into the room for this
occasion, but in accom- plishing the feat he
was compelled to obIterate one of the
City Hall Commissions most sacred
works OF art.
The resumption of the trial Yesterday
morning marked the inaugural of the
eighth week of this celebrated litigation
over the deeds held by Mrs Nettie r.
Craven to two of the most valuabI pieces
Of property claimed by the FAIR estate
Ihls eighth week does not promise much
OF interest, if yesterdays proceedings can
be taken as a criterion. Evidence for the
p ainuff's side is still going on, and at no
time has it ever been anything but dry
aid fatguing. The Old talk about nota-
rial blanks is on again, and the indica-
tions are that this will be the theme for
several days to come.
A c. Forsyth, the former manager of
the stationery department of the H S.
Crocker Company, was the first witness OF
the day. He, between the objections and
arguments OF opposing counsel, identified
the various blanks. copies OF blanks and
proofs OF blanks long since introd uced in
evidence, and which were also used at the
preliminary examination of Notary
Cconey.
Then came Thomas Watt, a notary of
St. Helena. He re ecoguized a certificate of
acknowledging that he had executed in
1891 on one of CrOtk ker's blanks. Notary
hoeger OF ST. Helena identified another
hat be b ad made out in the same wear.
All thiS, as Attorney McEnerney of the
plalntlft's side explained, was preliminary
10 IN effort 10 prove tnat there were no
such blanks as Cooney used in existeIc
at the time he is alleged to have acknowl-
edged the Craven deeds for Senator Fair
Alter this stack OF deeds Acknowledged
by Cooney during 1894 were produced and
the process OF having them identified be-
gan. Edward ?. Euriaht recognized the
first one as certifying TO a transfer OF
property to him in that year.
Charles Roller, grocer, was placed on
the witness-stand at the opening of the
attern session for the purpose of add
ing some breath OF pOSsiDl life to Mr..
McEnerney's pet theory that Notary
Cooney did not in September, 1894, have
III his possession any acknowledgment
blanks OF the kind found attached to the
disputed FAIR deeds. Roller recognized a
document, handed him by he stout attor-
ney: as being satisfaction of mortgage"
thai had been made over to him in No
vem Der. 1894, by Mrs Wilhemina Gross
man. Attached TO this document was an
acknowledgment made out by Notary
COoney, and it was this that Mr.. Nc
Enerney handed over to the jury so GIN
gerly.
The cross-examiaation of Roller bv
Attorney Ielmas developed the fact that
the grocer document was one of the dis.
coveries of Detective Seymour of the regu-
lar Police Department.
Henry A. Crane followed Roller on the
stand and was asked 10 identity a deed of
his own, which was accom- panied by a
Cooney's acknowled gment. Crane recog-
TqTv Hn he H. h.
that he did not know anything about the
potarlal certificate his evidence went for
little.
tnls gentleman, too, admitted that he
had been dragged into the case by the
Police Observation-Disclosures that the
detectives who are being paid by the peO-
pie to protect life and property were dab
bling in private litigation over juicy es-
tates instead.
Messrs. McEnerney and Wheeler made a
brave effort 10 talk Judge Slack out of his
ruling against the admission of the docu-
ment, but were unsuccessful. and rather
reluctantly directed Mr.. Crane to ske-
dadGle.
Edmund Marks identified a mortgage
document upon which he had loaned
Hugh keenan, $500 in November 1894
He also owed his appearance in court to
the diligence of the detectives, and let slip
the inform alton that he had in his posses
sion receipt from Detective Seymour for
the security of the document. Mr.. Delmas
Immediately demanded that this receipt
be brought into court, as he was anxious
to give the jury an opportunity to see it
for themselves and see what the police
have been doing in this case. Mr.. Marks
was directed to do as Mr.. Delmas asked.
Lewis Harter identified another Cooney
document and told about MS experience
with Detective Seymour.
John f. Lyons, the notary public, got a
oh m ffar ho
deed and mortgage holders had passed
away. Mr.. Lyons after formally telling
about his residence, his business and all
that. said he succeeded j. j. Cooney in
Office, and was appoin ted INN ediately
after the last gubernatorial election. Just
before Mr.. Cooney's term expired that
gentleman had an Office with the witness
on Montgomery street.
Mr.. McEnerney showed the witness no.
tarIal blank, which, he said was ole that
had been found in Cooney's former office,
and which was used as a biz of evidence IN
the preliminary examination of Cooney in
Judge Cooks court. The attorney wan ed
LYONS to identify it, but all the notary
could say was that he had seen something
similar 30 it. This tangled matters up
somewhat. and compelled the attorneys
for the plaintiffs to send out for Judge
Cook.
In the meantime, in order that there
would be 70 unnecessary delay, Hu Jones,
an attorney, was put on the stand. He
said that Mr. Coonev used to do all ot his
noiarial work in 1894 and that he was
very familiar with that gentleman's hand
writing. Then he identified a couple of
deeds that Cooney had acknowledged for
him in September of that year.
The opposing attorneys a this luncture
got into an argument over the admissl-
bility of Cooney's certificates as evidence.
Mr.. Delmas maintained that matters OF
this kind could not be used as evidence in
this particular case against Mrs. Craven.
1t might be evidence against Cooney him
sef, but then be was not defendant IN
this case.
Messrs McEnerney and Wheeler COM
bated this theory on the ground that the
objective point of their case was the estab-
lishment of proof that Cooney did not
have in his possession on Septem Der 81.
1894, the style of banks that were affixed
10 tie disputed deeds. The court finally
ruled that Jones could go on identifying
Cooney's signature to various deeds
aekno owiedged around and about Septem-
Der, 1894. He recognized half dozen OF
them ard was then excused.
The bailiffs had been unabla 10 find
Judge Cook, so an adjournment was taken
without hearing from him.