The record-union., 1899-04-25
MURDOCH NOTE CASE.
Writing Expert Eisenschimel Un-
der Cross-Examination

WILLOWS, April 24.-On the opening
of court in the Murdock case to-day
writing expert Carl Eisenschimel was
called to the stand by the defendants
and was handed old checks for further
analysis of the formation of the letters
in the last name, being old checks
signed by William Murdoch in 1877, the
date upon which the note is purported
to have been signed.
After stating the difference in the
various checks. the witness was turned
over to Grove l.. Johnson for cross-ex-
animation
Asked if he had examined the writing
in the various checks other than the
sigma ture, Eisenschimel replied that he
had not.
johnson handed him some old checks,
and he picked out certain ones which
he said were written by Mr.. Murdoch
and others that were not
Asked if he remembered when T. ].
Kirkpatrick affidavit was introduced,
if when sitting by the side of Mr..
Kytka, another writing expert, he had
not whispered to Kytka "Get hold of
that and make a photograph of it, and
we will knock it out he denied saying
so.
Asked if there was any doubt in his
mind that the note was copied from the
deed of 1890, witness replied that there
was none whatever.
Matters began to grow heated be-
tween counsel and the witness, the
court finding it necessary several times
to stop it. He said his professiHl was
science, an art, and a trade. AS a
science, he said that by three rules it
ought to be exact" as follows: In
alignment, in slant and in pressure.
When asked if experts on handwriting
ever disagreed, witness said: Some
times they did,
Asked if he had ever testified in any
case where Daniel T. Ames had testi-
fed he replied that he had. He said
both were witnesses in the Davis will
case. and that they disagreed.
When asked is he had peddled his
opinion around the streets of San
Francisco that the Murdock note was
forgery, the expert positively denied
that he had done so. He said he had
mentioned the matter to his family at
his dinner table
Did you not peddle around the
streets of San Francisco the opinion you
had given Mr. Cannon that the note
was forgery?"
No, sir
Witness was asked by Johnson if
1000 reputable people should swear the
signature on the note was the genuine
handwriting of William Murdock if he
would believe it.
Witness said it would not change his
opinion one particle
The witness was turned over to the
defense for redirect examination by
General Barnes, when the noon recess
was declared.
At the afternoon session Theodore
Kytka was recalled by the defense
General Barnes had him superimpose
the VIM" on the note on the VIM .
on the deed of 1890 The entire after
noon was occupied with his evidence
Mrs. Murdock was not present in
court to-day, but her husband was an
attentive listener.
The questions this afternoon indicate
that the plaintiffs will undertake the
Impeachment of one or more of the
experts as to what they have testified
to. Expert Kytka will be asked to-
morrow morning to execute in court a
patched document like the note He
testified that he had done this in the
Becker and Creegin case in San Fran
CISCO
In answer to Grove Johnson, Expert
Eisenschimel stated that he expected to
receive as compensation S100 per day,
although he had no contract
Expert Ames testified several days
ago that he was to receive this amount,
and at this rate the expert testimony
Will cost the defendants S4OO a day.