The San Francisco call., 1897-08-19
Doubted DEEDS
SEEN BY CULLEN
A Long Looked For Wit
ness Appears in the
Fair-Craven Trial.
He Says the Lady Exhibited
the Documents While in
Sacramento.
Mrs. Sarah Johnson Also Tells of a
Midnight Glimpse of Them at
the Colonial.


places most reliance in attempting to
prove the validity OF the deeds she says
Senator Fair gave her shortly before his
death-were placed upon the stand yes
terday and told their stories.
Others were called, too, but they were
lost in the shadow of insigniticance when
compared with these two, who, by the
wav. were the long-lo oked-for James T.
Cullen, and the wholly unexpected Mrs.
Sarah I. Johnson, proprietress of the
Colonial Hotel.
The nature of Cullen's evidence was
foreshadowed when Mrs. Craven first told
the story of how she came into possession
of the disputed deeds. She said that one
OF the first persons she ever told about
having he deeds was this same Cullen
hat was while the Legislature was in
session early in 1895-and now Cullen
comes forward 10 vouch for the truth of
the statement.
Cullen began his narrative under the
questioning OF Attorney Delmas, by say
ing that he had lived for thlrty-two years
in this CITY and was at present in the en-
ploy of the Harbor Commission. He was
shown the disputed deeds and said he
presumed they were the same documents
Mrs. Craven showed him at the Golden
uary or February, 1895.
This was the big point the defense
wished to prove, and as soon as the wit
ness said it was fact he was turned over
to Attorney Mitchell Of the pa ntiffs' line
for ss-examination. Mr.. Mitchell went
at Cullen with determination to punch
all kinds of holes in the fabric. The only
matter he consid cred of importance which
he ELECTED from the witness was an ad-
mission that it was Martin Kelly who first
asked him to be witness for Mrs. Craven.
Cullen said he was certain that the deeds
were acknowledged when he first saw
them.
Cullen said in answer to Mr.. Delmas, on
redirect examination, that his appoint
ment to the place under the Harbor Com
mi ssion was the direct result OF request
made by Governor Budd upon Chairman
Colnon OF that body. Kelly had nothing
10 do with it. The witness called upon
the executive in Sacramento and asked
him for place. Governor Budd said he
would fix 1t in day or two and kept his
word.
Cullen was shown piece of paper and
he identified it as a statement he had
written for Mrs. Craven in June, 1885, and
said it contained a resume of the matters
he could tes ify to. The statement was
offered in evidence by Mr.. Delmas and
was admitted.
Cullen was then excused from the stand
and Mr.. Delmas offered in evidence the
legal documents by which Charles L. Fair
sought to contest his fathers "trust" will
in June, 1895 His object. he said, was to
show an admission on the part of the heir
that the now disputed "pencil" will was
the real and genuine last testament of the
deceased millionaire. All of the Fair
children and their attorneys, declared
Delmas, acquiesced in the filing of this con-
test and he considered the fact q strong
point in favor of the present defense OF the
"pencil" will and deeds.
Attorney Wheeler of the plaintiffs side
was called TO the stand by the defense and
asked TO idenufy the contest papers and
confirm the fact that there was a contest.
Mr.. McEnerney offered formal obiec-
tion to the presentation of the evidence
and both sides prepared for big argu-
ment. Judge Slack headed them off,
however. by asking that they all submit
to him .heir respective authorities and
postpone the oratory to some other day.
The anne ruling greeted the offer to
identity the "pencll" will and use it as a
weapon against the plaintiffs
Judge NJ. Cooney, father of J. ]. Cooney,
the notary who says he acknowl edged the
Craven deeds, was now called. He merely
recognized the handwriting of his son on
the certficat es and was told lie could go.
n
been one OF the silent partners in the de-
fense's line ever since Mrs. Craven asserted
her claims against the Fair estate, was
sworn. He said that during the greater
part of the summer of 1895 the disputed
deeds were in his possession Locked up
in his box at the safe deposit. Stephe en-
Roberts put the dc cGments into his hands
for safe keeping.
The witness said that on the Sd. 9th and
18th of july the deeds were securely
locked up in the vaults and that neither
Mrs Craven or anybody else saw them.
T e import OF this evidence was that il
directly contradicted the testimony OF
John r. Aitken, namely, that Mrs. Cra-
ven had shown MIN the deeds on the
dates named.
On cross-examination Judge William
said he had a contingent interest in Mrs.
Craven's chances to recover in this suit.
He and Mr.. Roberts entered into con-
tract about year and half ago by which
the witness was to receive as his reward
one-twentieth of what the defendant re-
covered.
When did you first see those deeds?''
asked Mr.. Wheeler.
Il think it was on June II, 1896, Mr..
Roberts brought them to my office and
showed them to me-"
"What became of them after that2'
I'VE took them to the office of ]. j.
Cooney, the notary who had acknowl-
edged them"
Judge Williams said that Mr.. Roberts
turned the deeds over to him on July 8,
1896 He remem bered the date because
Ro berls left for Mono County the follow
ing day He received a letter from Rob-
erts during The latter's absence and read
lily prod uced it in court when asked for IT,.
Williams would not swear pos lively
that the deeds were not taken out of the
safe deposit on July and given to Attor-
ney Britain to be photographed, but he
felt quite certain that such was not the
case.
Mrs. Sarah T. Johnson, proprietress OF
the Colonial Hotel, was called. She said
she had known Mrs. Craven for twenty
years.
Ibid you see Mrs. Craven in the month
Of December, 1894. and did you see two
deeds?" asked Delmas.
Yes, SIR"
Asked to state the circumstances. Mrs.
Johnson said that the occurrence took
place on one night when they were retir-
ing. Mrs. Craven was undressing and took
the two deeds from her bosom. She
showed them 10 the witness, but did not
give Them into her hands.
There was an argument as to whether or
not Mrs. Johnson could testify as to wha
was said by Mrs. Craven and herself, and
this closed The days session. The court
IL ,x.,,, u.