The San Francisco call., 1899-04-22
NEVER YET HAS
MADE AN ERROR
Expert AmeS Claims He
Is Infallible.
Special Dispatch to The Call.

WILLOWS, April 21.-Grove L. John
sons ross-examination of Expert
Ames supplied the interesting feature
of the NIurdOck note case to-day. Ames
testified that he first made d report as
to the questioned signature to F. c.
Lusk. He had no doubt that the sigma
ture to the note was written subsequent
to the 1890 deed, and that if 100 men tes-
titled that they saw the note written
prior to that date he would believe they
were mistaken or that they were pre-
varicating. He had given testimony in
cases which did not agree with that of
other experts. He had testified to mat
ters in the Davis will case at San Fran
cisco and his testimony at that time
did not agree with that of Mr.. Eisen-
sChimel, an expert in attendance at the
present trial. The witness said he was
satisfied that his conclusions in all of
the 1900 cases in which he had been a
witness were correct. Ames said he
would render a bill for services in the
present case at the rate of $50 a day
for part Of the time and 500 per diem
for the remainder.
Carl Eisenschimel was called. He tes-
titled that he lived in san Francisco
and for about twenty years had been
making study of handwriting. He
mentioned many important cases in
which he had given testimony as an
expert. He first saw the 100000 note,
the subject Of the present case, in Jan
uary 1898, at the office of Cannon &
Freeman at San Francisco. He looked
at the note a moment there He had
examined Photographic copies of the
note, the deed of 1880, a fragment of a
deed made in 1872 and a letter written
by William Murdoch to Mary Helen
Murdock These he examined for a
week or ten days at the request of
Cannon & Freeman, and he told At
torney Cannon that he believed the sig
nature to the note was a forgery, pro-
duced by tracing, drawing and patch
ing. He had examined over 700 ad-
mlJted signatures of William MurdOck
since coming to Willows and had COM
pared these signatures with that of the
note. The note signature Incorporated
no characteristics Of the regular hand
writing of William Murdoch. The wit
ness said Murdoch was a man of habit
In his writing, and the spacing in his
admitted signatures showed this. After
Eisenschimel had said that Murdoch S
signatures showed a flowing hand and
that the note signature was haIting.
patched and retraced, a piece of gela-
tine on which the witness had traced
the signature on the deed of March.
1880, for the purpose of showing that
the VIM in the note signature was
identical with that of the deed was
produced. The court would not admit
the gelatine tracing and General
Barnes excepted. The witness then
went on to show the similarities in the
two WINS by means Of kytka's en-
larged photos. He explained to the
jury how he arrived at the accident
in the forming Of the capital W. in
the 1890 deed, and pointed out how the
accident was reproduced in the note
signature. The witness was asked TO
point out to the jurors how the patch
work was done. and Eisenschimel held
q patching bee pointing out the al
legged pen patches, which the witness
saib meant a hating with the pen at
each point. The jury was then told
about compound strokes" etc, show
ing how the admitted signatures diff
fered from that on the note
The quotation marks which form a
part of the VIM" in Murdock's sig
nature, came in for d deal of attention
from this expert.
After the afternoon recess Eisen-
schimel demonstrated to the jury GER
tain conclusions which he had arrived
at after examining the signatures. as
to the slant Of letters, a spattering of
ink claimed to be on the note sigma
ture, the burrows made by the pen
nibs and the marks which point to a
drawing. instead of a fluent writing of
the note signature
Admitted signatures innumerable
were pointed out by the witness to
show the "furrowing" and strokes of
the pen nibs.