The San Francisco call., 1899-05-05
McGLADE
CANNOT EvADE
LAWS ACTION
discriminating Docu-
ment Not Barred.
THE COURTS ADVERSE RULING
JUDGE COOK DECIDES AGAINST
THE DEFENDANT.
Witnesses Testify That the Sigma
THE COURTS ADVERSE RULING
JUDGE COOK DECIDES AGAINST
THE DEFENDANT.
Witnesses Testify That the Sigma
lures on the Alleged Bogus De-
mand Were Forged-Cer-
titled To by Accused.

Peter w McGlade was treated to a bit
ter disappointment yesterday morning
when Judge Cook rendered decision over
ruling the objections of his attorney,
Patrick Reddy, to the admission as evil
dence against him of the alleged forged
demand for street work on which the in
dictment of the Grand Jury was based.
EX-Street Superintendent AmbrOse'S for
mer bookkeeper and his attorney had
built high hopes on barring out this i'm
portant document and had they succeed
ed McGlade would have got off scot free
on all the charges pending against him.
AS it is the evidence will go to the jury.
In rendering his decision Judge Cook
took up the objections of defendant $
counsel one by one and disposed of them
in short order. The court held that the
contention that the document was void
on its face and therefore not a fit sub
ject for an Indictment for forgery be-
cause the signatures of Assistant Super
intendent of Streets Clark and Assistant
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Nc
GinnfS were valueless, even if genuine
was insufficient ground for objection
Ihe document" he said. $50 far as it
travels down to the Auditors allowance
appears TO be demand for the payment
OF money. Attached TO it is an affidavit
Whlch purportS to prove the genuineness
OF the demand. Now it is charged that
\
McGlnniS are forged. So it comes down
to forged document for payment with
forged evidence of its correctness SO if
the people can prove that it is forged
Sc far the allegations of the complaint
with regard to the making of the forgery
Will have been sustained
With regard TO the uttering of the for
gery-tor the crime of forgery consists of
two acts, making and uttering-the de-
mand having been allowed by the Audi
tor that portion of it containing the Au-
dltor allowance may be open to obiec-
tlon that no one was injured thereby. But
think evidence should go TO the jury"
Immediately following the rendering of
the decision the introduction of evidence
going to prove the forgery and thus paw
ing the way for the admission of the doc
ument was begun. H. j. Swords, in whose
name the demand was made. was re-
called and swore that he had never
signed the paper and that he had never
worked for the Street Department. He
was w 8, foilowed by former Superintendent
OF Streets Ambrose, who explained the
methods in vogue in the office in regard
to the filing of demands and of the dis
coyery of McGlade's alleged crime
Thomas j. Clark testified that he was
deputy in the office of the Superinten-
dent of Streets when the bogus demand
was filed and he swore positively that he
had never affixed his signature to the
while serving in the Street Department
he had entire charge of the sewer work
and that Swords was never employed in
that department.
same kind of evidence was introduced.
but not without objection on the part
of the defendants counsel, who stub
bornly contested every point. The most
positive declaration OF NJ. NJ. Regensbur-
ger a money broker. that the signature
of P. w. McGlade, which appears on the
back of the demand, certifying that