The San Francisco call., 1899-05-04
McGLADE MAY
ESCAPE ON A
TECHNICALLY
Important Point for
Cook to Decide.
EVIDENCE MAY BE BARRED
FIGHT OVER THE ADMISSION
OF DOCUMENTS.
Defense Claims the Alleged Forged
Claim Was Void on It's Face
and Should Never Have
Been Allowed.
EVIDENCE MAY BE BARRED
FIGHT OVER THE ADMISSION
OF DOCUMENTS.

The fate of Peter ". AIcGlade will prob
ably he determined this morning. when
Superior Judge Carroll Cook will render
his decision on the admissibility as evil
6enCe Of the forged document by means
ct which the former deputy Street Super
-0tsnden- IS alleged 10 have swindled the
- ~ out Of So. Should the objections Of
Attorney Patrick Reddy on behalf Of the
defendant be sustained and the incrim-
mating document barred, the prosecution
VIII come 10 naught. for the piece of
paper over which the technical battle was
"aEed all Of yesterday is the sole basis
Tor the case OF the prosecution. On the
p-ler hanC. II the document is admitted
the conviction of McGlade appears praC-
rCaly certain to follow.
The specific charge on which the eX-
deputy II being tried is but one of
number OF similar charges pending, but as
-ll are based on forged documents similar
IN all essential details 10 the one in con-
T9NrrSy. ths decision of the court, II adj
verse % the prosecution viii naturally
result In the discharge of the prisoner.
ID substance the defendant contends
thai the document or demand on which
The money was obtained was not a de-
Wau1 winch tne Board OF supervisors.
the Treasurer or the Auditor was author
lZe1 by law % allow, even II genuine. and
that the allowance of the demand was
said demand hy NcGlade as deputy Su-
periu-aCdent of Streets is not the subject
OF forgery for the reason that II was not
a forgery for the defendant 10 sign his
own name. that the certificate signed by
Thomas 7. Clark. clerk in the office OF
the Superintendent OF Streets. was, upon
its face Illegal ana void. as II was not
signed in the name IF his principal, that
there was no authority in law authoriZ-
I-L 7. =. MCGIDDls as assistant clerk OF
the Board Of Supervisors or otherwise, TO
administer oarhs. and his jurat, which
appears on the face Of the demand, Is
therefore void. In fact. Attorney ReddY
. laimed that every Endorsement that ap-
ears ON the back of the claim or demand
.s illegal and void. and he further claimed
that there was no allegation in the com
plant that the document was ever pre-
seDrel t0r payment 10 the Treasurer
The attorney quoted copiously from
stack Of lawbooks TO convince the court
that his contentious were well founded.
Assistant District Attorney Black, who
Is conducting the prosecution. argued that
the claims Of the defendant counsel
were in most instances very far-fetched
and that the Endorsements that appear on
the demand alleged TO have been pre-
sented and cashed by McGlade were borne
by hundreds Of other claims filed at the
same time the legality Of which has
never been questioned, and that the in
dorsing Of claims by officials referred 10
as well as the administering Of oathS by
an assistant clerk OF the Board OF super
visors are of daily occurrence
He maintained that the court should
not allow a tangle of technical objections
raised by the defense TO obscure the fact
that the criminal intent had been SHOWN
by the defendant.
The court promised TO render a decision
on the point involved at u o'clock this
morning.