The San Francisco call., 1897-06-03
RANK PERJURY IS
OUT SOME WHERE
William ]. Wallace's Deed
From His Mother At
tackled in Conrt.
Eugene J. McManus Testi6es
That He Fab icated the
Document.
Testimony TO Show That 1t Was Writ.
ten After the Death of the
Alleged Grantee.

morning or the story that you are telling
now2" asked Judge Hunt OF Eugene b.
McMsnuO yesterday afternoon during the
trial of the case Of jeremiah Sheehy, as
administrator of the estate OF Catherine
Wallace, deceased, against William ).
Wallace, the Hibernia Bank, Judas Boss,
Eugene B. McManus and his wife, all of
whom are supposed to claim interest in
the estate of the late Mrs. Wallace.
McManus hesitated and was evidently
i'll at ease. He seemed disposed TO stick
to both stories, but the court was mex
orable and insisted that the witness
should choose between his statements of
the material facts involved in the litiga-
tion then under consideration by the
court ana jury.
''Well, l say that what l now say is the
true story" was McManus' final reply.
Then what did you mean by telling
things tnat you were not willing to stand
by2 was the courts next question, and
the witness evinced the fact OF his great
discomfort by perspiring even more freely
than before, but he at last got in an ex-
PLANTATION that appeared to be satisfactory
to himself, whether it was to any BODY
else in the case or not.
- SUSPECTED this man Wallace of trying
to take advantage OF me and l deter
mined to go in with him and my wife and
the others, and to go Just as far as | could
without risking term in San Quentin"
Then the details of the story came out
little by little. 1t was developed by the
testimony of the witness that the late
Mrs. Wallace had been an invalid for sew
eral years before her death, and at The
time of her final illness was not able TO
walk or write owing to an attack Of mus
cular rheumatism. She was taken with
her final sickness on the 9th OF Decem Der,
month. On the 3lst OF the same month a
deed was filed purporting to have
been executed by Mrs. Wallace on
the day she was taken with her fat al sick
ness. The deed purported TO have been
acknowledged before Notary Public
Thomas II. Brien, and bore his certih-
cate that McManus acknowled ged 1t as
subscribing witness, together with the
statement that, as Mrs. Wallace was not
able to write, he (McManusl signed her
name at her request, she making a cross.
In the deed all the interest OF the de-
cedent In $4,000 worth of real estate was
conveyed to William j. Wallace, and as
soon as he could conveniently do so he
mortgaged the premises for $4,000. The
suit of Sheehy is to declare the deed null
and void and to cancel the interest of the
money lenders in the property, except as
to the share of William J. Wallace as
one of the heirs of The deceased.
MUManus, continuing his testimony,
swore that he did not write the deed until
after Mrs. WaIlace's death, and that he
did not appear before Notary O. Brien for
the purpose of acknowledging the deed
as subscri bing witness or otherwise, but
on cross-examination confessed tnat be
did go to the office of the notary on
the date mentioned in the certificate
of acknowledgement At first he declared
that he went to the notary's Office simply
out OF curiosity, but on re1ecuon decided
n hat rot
went to the notary's Office because Wallace
wanted him to do so.
When questioned in regard to the max
ing of the deed McManus said that he
wrote it at the request of Wallace and
signed it with ths name of Mrs. Wallace
as subscribing witness. He persistently
denied, however, that he went so lar as 10
procure its Acknowledgements before a no.
tary.
Mrs. McManus was produced as a wit
ness for the plaintiff. She swore that it
was impossible for her husband to have
written and procured the signature OF
Mrs. Wallace to the deed on the date of it's
date for the reason that she was at the
bedside OF Mrs. Wallace at the time the
deed purports to have been signed, and
she sWears that her husband was not
there. At this point Mrs. McManus was
confronted with copy of her depos ton,
taken some time ago, in which she testi-
he'd that she was present and saw her hus-
band sign Mrs. Wallace's name to the
deed.
Did you so testify while giving your
deposition2" asked Attorney Anderson,
representing the defendant.
Il did -
"How do you explain the discre pancy ?''
II was afraid OF Wallace, and l did it
because he told me to-
Mrs McManus was not able to explain
how Wallace impelled her to give the tes-
W dad in
tion, but said he had threatened 10 send
her to San Quentin if she refused to swear
as he wished. She swore that her brother
was friendly with Wallace and had tried
to have her sent to an insane asylum in
order that she might be got out of the
way before this trial, and so prevented
from testifvlng to the truth. She said
that her brother went so far as to have
her arrested on charge of insanity only
few days ago, and that she was dis
charged from custody by the Judge of the
court before whom she was examined.
Catherine TyrreI swore that she was
employed as a domestic servant by Mrs
Wallace and was at the Wallaces on the
9th of Dece Der, on which day the deed
was said to have been made. She was abb
sent part of the day, and after her re-
turn heard Mrs. Wallace and her SOM
William J. Wallace, talking. Mrs. Wal,
lace told her son that Mrs. NcManus had
been there, but did not say anything
about McManus having visited her. In
reply to question by Attorney Burke,
representing the plaintiff, the witness
said that there was no writing material
in the room occupied by Mrs. Wallace
William J. Wallace testified that he
went to his mothers house on the 9th of
December and that she said to him,
"Here is a present for you," and she took
the deed to the properly out from under
her apron and handed it to him. She
said, Keep the deed and have il recorded
if nything happens" He put the paper
in his pocket, and as his mother had
asked him not to say any hing about it
he aid not tell anybody that he mad it,
On the Goth of that month he offered the
deed for record in the County Recorders
Office, at which time his attention was
called to the fact chat it was not acknowl-
edged. He hunted up McManus next day
and McManus went before a notary and
made the proper acknowledgment as a
subscribing witness to the deed.
The case will go on again this morning
at 10 o'clock
DOckery's Case Continued.