The San Francisco call., 1897-08-11

documents to which he attached trim med
Acknowledgements other than the Fair
instruments.
There was an argument among the at.
torneys as TO whether or not Cooney could
be asked if he used blanks different from
those he resorted to when Fair called an d
the court finally ruled that he could.
Cooney said that he did not re IN m ber.
mum ter OF deeds and other documents
acknowledged by Cooney during Septem-
ber, 1894 were shown TO the witness and
Identified by him. This was for the pur-
pose of possibly showing that he did not
ALWAYS use blanks Ike those attached to
the Fair deeds. Mitchell seemed to con-
meet great importance to these and
showed them to the jury. In tie midst
of his revel, however, Mr.. Foote called
the jury's attention to the fact that one OF
the sa mple deeds being shown bore evil
dence OF having been acknowledged at the
office of NJ. Cooney, father of the Witness
aud not at the notary's place OF business.
Bundles of addition al deeds were shown
to the witness at the outset OF the after
noon session for the purpose OF having
him identity the Acknowledgements at
tached thereto. He did so readily, but
Mr.. Mitchell's method of bringing for
ward the deeds took up great deal OF
valuable time. The record became badly
tangled and more time was lost in
Strengthening it out.
The witness was finally questioned
again about Senator Fairs visit to his
office. In response he said he had no
independent or special recollection OF that
transaction. There was nothing unusual
about it and he only recolIected it in a
general way from the fact that the Sen.
ator was there and that his record indi-
Gated what had taken place.
Cooney's record book was brought for
ward and identified. When it was offered
in evidence, however, Judge Curtis OBJ
jscted on the ground thatthe single entry
regarding the Fair deeds was all that
could be offered Messrs. Wheeler, Nc
Enerney and Mitchell argued with hope
of getting in the entire book, but the
court ruled against them. So it was that
only the particular entry referred to got
in.
Mitchell handed Cooney one of the dis
puted deeds and asked him If he took the
name ''Nettie R. Craven" from that docu-
ment in order to make his record. This
was intended TO be trap for the witness,
because the PARTICULAR deed shown him
did not contain the word "Nettie." But
the other deed did. and Cooney said that
he probably got the name from that one.
You have testified that you made the
record after Senator Far left your office.
How long after was it?" asked Mitchell.
Il Olu Hot teStiiy tudt way, Iepileu
Cooney. II did not say made the record
after he left"
When did you make it?"
"WhiIe Senator Fair was there"
How much did he pay your
Either 81 or s.. l forget which"
In answer to question as to where he
procured the blanks he used in executing
the disputed Acknowledgements Cooney
said he bought them at Crocker's or so me
other stationery-store-he could not be
sure just where.
After inquiripg OF the witness if it was
his custom to take Acknowledgements with
out the acknowledging party being pres
ent, and being denied an answer by virtue
of one of judge Curtis crushing objections,
the attorneys for the heirs asked for and
were granted a breathing spell until to-
day.