The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-05-27
LUCRE FOR
! GUMPEL'S
POCKETS
Attorney Foote VIKINGS an
Admission From the
Expert.
HOW HE WAS TO GIVE
TESTIMONY.
Extra Pay if His Opinion Be
Favorable to the Fair Els.
tate's Executors.
WOULD GET $4,000 TO DEC0Y
THE DEEDS.
WOULD GET $4,000 TO DEC0Y
THE DEEDS.
This WITNESS Was Subj ,cted TO Har-
rowing Ordeal Yesterday While
Under .Cross.Exa alton.

Those who attended yesterdays session
of the Fair-Craven trial cannot echo the
old complaint that their greatest effort
was to keep awake.
1t was without doubt the liveliest day
that this Iong-drawn-out proceeding has
yet xperienced-made so primarily by
the cross-examination of Handwriting
EXPERT Gumpel and with numerous tiffs
and tussles between opposing counsel
thrown in to lend spice and zest to the
days doings. The batting of Gumpel by
Attorney W. W. Foote has been looked
forward to for days, for, being familiar
with the excitability of the expert when
under fire and likewise with the e1asper-
ating tenacity with which MIR. Foote
clings to a witness, every body knew that
this particular act of the drama would
furnish something of more than ordinary
interest. And it did.
Gumpel did not emerge from the ordeal
in blaze of glory. As has been the case
with him before when faced by cross
examiner who knew mis- business, he lost
his head, Stun bled and CROPPED, and at
times contradicted himself aiarmingly.
And then admissions were wrung from
him tnat will doubtless supply the
grou ndwork for some scorching illusions
10 his worth as an expert when the de-
lenses arguments are reached at the close
of the trial. The most interesting of these
came out just before adjournment. Mr..
Foote was curious to know what the other
side was paying Gumpel for his services
in the case. The expert was inclined to
be evasive at first, and vouchsafed merely
that he had a contract with the executors of
the estate. But, being pressed he said he
was to get $1,000 for his scrutinies OF the
disputed will and deeds and for his opin-
ion.
And is that allP" asked Mr.. Foote with
a peculiar smile.
'Well,'' said Gumpel, hesitatingly, sit
Is also understood that if my opinion be
favorable TO them l am to get more"
Just what | was trying 10 get at" said
Mr.. Foote triumphantly.
Counsel for tue estate objected stren-
uously to the bringing out of his evidence,
but it availed them nothing.
II have the right to show this witness
interest in this case and why he is testify
ing here" was Mr.. Foote'S retort. at Is
pertinent that the jury should know that
his man is here for the purpose of filling
his pockets with lucre.'
The court ruled the questioning on this
point to be proper, and Mr.. Foote then
wruag the additional confession from
ing testimony favorable to the estates
Claims and against Mrs. Craven will
amount to $1,000.
During the morning session Gumpel
denied that he pronounced the so-called
pencil" will genuine at a time when the
Fair heirs we're anxious to have that
document probated in preference to the
trust" will. The defense also desired
to question him regarding some blunders
he is said to have made in other cases in
which he appeared as an expert. but the
court declined to admit the evidence.
Gumpel acknowledge that he had been
in frequent consultation with the other
experts employed in the case, but assured
the attorneys that he did not permit them
to influence him in forming his opinion.
Mr.. Foote had new piece OF bait on his
hook for Gumpel when court reconvened
for the afternoon session.
He handed the expert his court note
book, and, pointing to some writing on
one of the pages, asked him to diagnose 1t
and then slate whether or not it had all
been written with the same pencil and all
at the same time.
This brought the entire line of attorneys
for the plaintiffs to their feet with
chorus of protests. Mr.. Mitchell declared
that evidence of this sort would open up
collateral issues and encum Der the case.
Mr.. McEnerneY's rail was that the other
side had no right to trip up the expert
with catch questions, and Mr.. Wheeler
said that all of the courts had ruled
against this style of testing witness
ability al an expert.
Judge Slack could see no harm in the
question, however, as he deemed it simply
preliminary, anyhow.
Gumpei, being directed to answer, said
that in his opinion Mr.. Foote had written
those notes with one pencil and at the
same time.
Now, YOU are sure about that, are you