The San Francisco call., 1897-02-26
A COONEY TANGLE
STRAIGHTENED OUT
Judge Cook Explains His
Charge to the Grand
Jury.
No Reference to the Printing
of the Barry Blanks
Intended.
Attorneys for the Fair Es'ate Ask
for a PoStponement of the
Pencil Deeds Fight.
Explanations were an impromptu order

in the Cooney case yesterday morning.
There had been a garbled version in
some of the newspapers of Judge Cook S
recent charge to the grand jurors when
he submitted the testimony introduced
against the young notary to that body
three days ago. One sensational daily had
reported that the court had Instructed the
jury to investigate the circumstances at
tending the printing of tac-similes of the
Crocker notarial blanks by James Ii.
Barry, which were ordered by Mrs.
. Craven's attorneys with view to testing
the skill of the experts employed by young
Fair
Attorney D. NJ. Delmas asked Judge
Cook if there was anything in this manner
OF Interpreting his instructions to the jury.
The judge made an emphatic denial.
Such an idea was farthest from his
thoughts he declared, and he admitted the
right of the lawyers to print the blanks
for the purpose for which they were
ordered.
- Attorney Delmas got the floor the
moment the court opened. He said:
During an examination had in this court,
before your Honor, sitting as committing
magistrate IN The case OF J. J. Cooney, certain
certificates were introduced in evidence,
which had been printed at the request ana
suggestion of some OF the counsel in collat-
eTal and Kindred case. In the instructions
which this court gave the Grand Jury couple
OF days ago, some allusiOn was made TO the
certificates attached TO the so-cailed Craven
and Fair deeds.
a portion OF that charge has been construed
by some people to be intended reflection
upon the conduct of counsel in having had the
tirst-named certificate printed for the purpose
OF subjecting the experts science to the test. l
myself could not conceive that any such con-
struction could be placed upon the charge OF
fo be
formed by The court, if the court sees proper TO
do so, whether l am 10 understand or the
Grand Jury are 10 understand that such was
the purport OF the charge, so that in the event
that 1t should be deemed necessary, the matter
could be met with proper explanation from
counsel, which apprehend IL would not be
difficult to give?
In reply Judge Cook said:
Such an idea as that suggested by you, Mr.
Delmas, farJhest from my mind and l
don't see how my language could be so con-
strued in the statement which l made TO the
Grand Jury when they were called here, and
in fact, cannot conceive how construction
OF that sort could be placed upon the remarks
I-made. know that l had no such thought
in my mind when addressing the jurors and
intended TO convey 10 such meaning. II is
true that during the course OF the Cooney eX-
animation allusiOns were made in the argu-
'menI OF some OF the counsel In the case 10
section 134 OF the Penal Code, and it is also
true l called the attention of the Grand Jury
to sections 410 and 134 of the Penal Code
but my object in directing their attention 10
those Two sections that they should ex-
anime those sections in connection with the
'two certificates attached TO The two pencil
deeds.
Therefore, if certificate of that sort were
falsely made it might be the committing of q
crime under the provisions OF that section,
and 1t with that view, and that view
alone, that I directed the attention of the
Grand Jury to that section; whether they
might consider the making of these certif-
Gates iii attached to the deeds) brought those
. persons that made them under the provisions
of that section, or the making of the same GER
uhcates might bring the parties under the
provisions OF section 40, for the crime OF
. forgery.
1t was only, as I said before, in relation to
. those particular certificates attached to the
pencil deeds that intended to make any ref
erence, and did not refer 10 them in terms; l
: simply referred the matter to the Grand Jury
and thought that was all they would under
stand. Certainly, far es the action of coun-
sci is concerned, IN the making of similar GER
stlncates, evidence OF which was introduced at
the examination Of j. j. Cooney and from the
very TACT that in the opinion which l wrote
and filed on the motion 10 discharge the de-
feadant in that case l made no allusion to
those certificates or the printing of them by
o. Mr.. Barry, or procuring them TO be printed by
counsel would seem to me sufficient to indl-
cate that l certainly did not consider the
printing of those blanks as a circum stance
tending IN any way to establish the guilt of
should be considered as q all out OF the regu-
. lar ana ordinary course.
Undoubtedly had considered it circum-
record for evidence and circumstances and
enumerating each fact, would have undoubt-
edIy enumerated that, and, as said before,
the TACT tina l did not consider it at all would
indicate certainly TO the counsel that saw
nothing in IL that was improper. In fact it is
very common everyday occurrence in cases
where experts are examined to prepare for
them simulated or manufactured specimens of
writing or manufactured specimens of any
thing else upon which they are required to
pass..so that the weight OF their opinion as ex-
perts may be tested. II is matter that has
been done repeatedly in cases where identity
IS concerned that person would be made to
appear like defendant and brought into
. court to test the accuracy OF one claiming TO
identity him. 1t has been done in the most
celebrated cases ever tried, and in cases where
the identity OF property is in question. sup
pose case after case could be found where ex-
9 perts upon diamonds have been called upon to
pass an opinion, paste diamonds having been
made In imitation OF the genuine, and putting
O them with the genuine TO test them as to their
knowledge.
And in handwri ting it is done every dav.
II was done right here in this court last week
where different samples OF handwriting were
&. put upon paper. and some genuine and some
q. lIAl tatlons Ior the purpose OF testing ex-
psrt In the Dana viii l remember il
was DONE and $50 in the Sharon case; in fact
II is always done, and If II is permissible in
such matters, it certainly would be permissi-
ble where experts were expected to testify
upon printing or upon any other matter; and,
as say from the evidence that was offered
here IN the Cooney case, don't see that there
was anything done at all by counsel in rela-
tlOn 10 the printing OF those certificates by
Mr.. Barry which could in any sense or any
way be construed to be g criminal act or
which could by any possibility bring either
counsel or the printer within the provisions
OF section 134 or within the provisions of any
other section of tie penal laws of this State
From the evidence that was given on that
examination 1t distinctly shows that all that
was done was adml 10 have been done by
counsel for parti cular purpose. If you will
remem Der when each of the counsel testified
an relation to the matter each one of them dis
stinctly stated under oath that they were not
printed with any intent to deceive the court.
That was stated, l believe, by every witness
who gave any testimony upon the subject al
al. Whether such statements were made by
counsel under oath or not, whenever counsel
appear in this court and the court knows him
TO be a gentleman of the bar, and makes
though not under oath q statement that things
were done for certain purpose, stating upon
their word officer OF .Iis court that they
were not done for q deceiving purpose, that
Will. suffice and will answer all claims as far
aSthis court is concerned.
1t certainly sa tisfied me that they were not
made for any purpose of deceiving the court
and it certainly was not my intention 10 lead
investigate any such charge as that. / don't
believe they gave any such construction as
that TO. my language, and If they dId | Will
with the greatest OF pleasure disabuse their
minds OF any such construction and even IL
they should present an Indictment upon facts
OF that sort IL would be piece OF waste paper.
/ don't believe, Mr.. Delmas, that it will be
necessary for you or any one else to ask for q
hearing before the Grand Jury on that matter
ct all unless you are advised by them that they