The San Francisco call., 1899-05-11
EXPERTS DISAGREE
IN MURDOCH CASE
Conflicting Views as to
Chirography.
Special Dispatch to The Call.

WILLOWS May 10.-When court con-
vened this morning The defense in the
Murdock note case asked for the privi-
lege to recall James Boyd and w. Z.
Bowles. Boyd testified that he knew
James Mcconnell, who, w. E. Bowles tes-
titled, was at the State fair in 1887. Nc
Connell had worked for him before he
left Willows. Boyd had never seen him
at a State fair in Sacramento nor had
he seen William Murdock there. He
would have seen both men had they
been there. On cross-examination by
Johnson Boyd said he was certain about
this
w. E. Bowles followed Boyd. Heswas
asked by Lusk if he had not, before he
left Willows years ago, been arrested here
for eXtorting money from women and
Chinese and if he had not left Willows to
avoid trial for the offense. Attorney
Johnson said this was a very improper
question and a witness should be allowed
to strike down an attorney for such an in
suit. He asked the court to protect the
witness and not allow the question to be
answered The witness had already an
swered NO" Judge Pirkey said he
would allow this question, as the witness
had already answered, but he did not
want any more of the kind The witness
started an explanation of his having been
arrested, but was Immediately stopped by
Mr.. Knock was called to give expert
testimony in regard to the measurement
of the angles in ''Wm." of the note and
the 1890 deed, from which the defense
claims the signature on the note was
traced. He said he had had many years
experience as civil engineer and had
made close study of surveyors lines and
degrees he had examined the seventy
nine Photographic signatures of William
Murdock and the signatures to the note
and deed, and had discovered that the
'Wm." of the deed and the VIM of the
note were not alike.
There is not line in the VIM. of the
respond, with but one exception, and
that is the first stroke of the m of both
WINS.
Expert Knock explained many differ
ences which he said he found between
other letters of the two signatures. The
testimony of Mr.. Knock contradicts al
most all of that given by Experts Ames,
Kytka and Eisenschimel. Mr.. Knock had
made several tracngs of the different sig
natures which he used in his demonstra-
ton. He said he did not believe the sig
nature of the note was traced from the
signature of the deed.
Mrs. T. j. kirkpatrick was recalled. She
had been at Mary Helen Murdocks house
on September g. 1887. She went there to
pick some geese, which Mrs Murdoch had
left in her charge for the feathers. Mrs.
Murdock was at home and the witness
was much surprised to see her there, for
she thought she was at Allen Springs.
burned three days after that Mr. Nei-
deffer's child died about that time.
James p. Matlock, DR.. West. H. P.
Andrews, w. A. Fish, Charles f. Foster
L. w Valentine and A. l.. Conard all of
Tehama County, testified that the general
reputation of Ashurst was good. Here the
plaintiff rested.
Mrs. Smith, a daughter of G. Murdock
deceased was called by the defense to
prove that Mary Helen Murdock was at
Allen Springs on September Z, 1877. She
was positive of this. number of wit
nesses had testified that Mrs. Murdoch
was at her Stoney Creek ranch on that
date.
Allen Henry and wife of Chico testified
that the plaintiff was at Allen Springs on
September 6, 1877, the day the note is said
to have been signed and delivered to the
plaintiff at the Stoney Greek ranch.