The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-01-15
Ex- Notary James ]. CoOney
in Custody On a Charge
of Perjury.
All the Parties Making the Fight
for Mrs, Craven May Be
Arrested.
Charles L. Fair Becomes Aggressive
and Interest in the Fair Litigation
Takes a New Squirt.

EX-N Otary j. }. COOney was AIIeSIeu
yesterday morning on a charge of perjury
The charge is based upon his deposition
in the Craven ejectment suit in which be
declared that James G. Fair personally
appeared before him to certify to the
Craven deeds on September q, 1894, and
that be (Cooney) made out the certificates
and attached them to the. deeds on thai
day.
The arrest did not come as surprise to
those who have followed the ramitications
of the Fair will case" for the attorneys
for the heirs have limited frequently OF
their intention to make such move,
Cooney himself declares he was not sur
prised, as he was given to understand that
something of the kind was in the air.
The warrant was issued Wednesday
evening by Judge Carroll Cook.
1t was turned over to Captain Lees,
who detailed Detectives Seymour and
REYNOLDS. They served it upon Cooney
at O'Clock yesterday morning. He was
taken to the City Prison, and at 10 O'Clock
before Judge Cook, who read the long
complaint and advised him OF his rights.
The matter then went over until O'Clock
in the afternoon, Cooney not being repre-
sented by counsel. In the afternoon At
torney Patrick Reddy appeared for Cooney,
and w. w. Foote was present on behalf OF
Nettie R. Craven-to look after her inter
ests. Judge Cooney, the father of James
J. Cooney, was also present.
District Attorney Barnes represented the
people, supported by Attorneys Knight &
Heggarty and Reuben LLOYD.
Mr.. Reddy stated to the court that he
was not familiar with the circumstances,
NTH thic o0nSid Grafton the case was
ca rried over until Monday morning at IL
O'Clock. The bail was reduced from $1O,-
O00 as named in the warrant, to $4,000,
and later in the day it was furnished.
The complaint on which the warrant
was issued was drawn up by District At
torney Barnes and sworn to by Charles L.
Fair.
Il tells the long story of the Fair liti-
Cation; how Nettie r. Craven sought to
tablish her right and title to the two
pieces of property, one located on San
some and Pine streets and the other on
Mission and Eleventh streets, by present.
ing two deeds purportlng to have been
made in her favor by James G. Fair. At
taChed to these deeds were certificates OF
acknowled gment bearing the signature
and official stamp of James J. Cooney as
notary public and the date of the alleged
acknowledgment, Septem Der q, 1894
The deposition of Notary Cooney in the
suits IN eiectment brought by Mrs. Craven
to recover possession of the property was
taken before Notary Public Charles w.
Smyth, December IL, 1896, and afterward
December q, 1896 Cooney in both in
stances, it is set forth, swore that Senator
Fair did personally appear before him on
the 9th DAY of September, 1894, and as
he, CoOney, made out and signed the two
certificates of acknowledgment which
were attached to the deeds, he, Cooney,
"well knowing this statement to be false
and untrue, did willfully commit perjury"
The deposition taken December u was
conducted by George a. Knight in the
Offices of Knight & Heggariy. The wit
ness was questioned infinitely, and. over
and over again, as to the paper he had
used in making these certificates, where
he purchased it. and why he hal pur-
chased it when at the time he had other
blank certificates wherein his name was
printed.
The witness could not tell at what sta
tionery store he had bought the blanks
but said that be frequently used blanks
other than those having his name printed
in them, upon his patrons request. The
lower edges of the certificates were
clipped off. Tie witness was asked why
he did this and his answer was that they
were too wide to conform to the size OF
legal cap and that he clipped them "a
make them conform.
These are the points upon which, it is
understood, the prosecution for perjury is
based. 1t is alleged by the attorneys for
the heirs and for the estate that the
answers do not meet the facts; that the
certificates are really not as wide as legal
cap by fully an inch, and that clipping
the lower edges would certainly not help
the matter. The real purpose of clipping
the lower edges, they say, was to cut off
the name of the printer of the blank and
the number of the issue, that carries with
it the date of the issue.
They claim to have discovered the
identity OF the printer and the date of the
issue through the water mark in the
paper. which first disclosed the manu-
facturer of the paper. They claim to be
able to prove that the paper was not in
existence at the time that Cooney swear:
he used it as a certificate of acknowledg-
ment, September q, 1894. They claim tc
have proof Of all this.
Expensive experts have been working
over the deeds for months at the in
stance of Charles LIAR and his attor
neys, and it is from them that the lawyers
claimed to have received their cue in
these particulars, but they say they will
be able to make out their case without the
aid of experts.
District Attorney Barnes claims to have
every confidence in the case as stated. HI
has prepared two other complaints, charg
ing perjury, based upon Cooney's com
plants against Charles Fair for damages
Fair, it vii; be remembered, declared
the deeds to be forgeries and in a news
paper interview charged Cooney with per
jury. Cooney then brought suit TO-
damages TOR this alleged SANDER, in which
he repeated the statement as TO his havin:
MADE the certificates on the date named
These atfidavits form the basis for tht
other two charges of perjury.
Mr.. Cooney was Complacency itsel
yesterday through all these circum
stances.
II was not surprised at my arrest" b,
said. II have understood there was some
thing in the wind for some time. l saw
the detectives pass the house last evening
and Immediately surmised what wa,
up. / don't understand why they hav,
delayed so long, however. This frs
deposition was taken six or seven month.
ago. The second deposition was taker
about two or three weeks ago. l testihec
to the same thing in regard to the appear
ance of Senator Fair before me in the sec
ond deposition as l did in the first.
~ can't see," he continued, "why they
should prefer such a charge against me a
this time, seeing that the case is set To-
two weeks hence. l can see no othel
cause for my arrest than to iniure me anc
my reputation. The last deposition wa.
taken merely for the purpose of covering
the second deposition, and there is no ex
cuse in so much delay and in letting 81
long time intervene in preferring tn,
charges. against me. l still reiterate tn,
matter in both dispositions"
Mr.. COOnev was rplea eed IN honds fur