Amador ledger., 1902-06-13
MACQUARR|E FOUND GUILTY.
Jury Deliberates for About
Four Hours.
Synopsis of the Testimony-The Prior
Conviction Charges-More Expert
Witnesses Defense.

opinion, said that he was well acquaint-
ed with defendants handwriting, and
n his opinion the writing on the body
of the disputed check including the
signature, was the work of the defend
ant.
Next came the star witness for the
prosecution, Carl Eisenschemel, of San
Francisco, professor of writing, and ex-
pert examiner of disputed writing. He
told the jurors OF his extensive expert.
ence as writing detective, having
taken part in the celebrated Fair will
case, and the Becker forgery case,- in
which draft of S12, 600 given by the
bank of Woodland was raised to S22.-
600, and the work so neatly. done that
the raised check was honored at the
WoOlwOrth Crocker National Bank.
The witness was on the stand from
| Friday noon and the whole of Satur-
day. He exhibited an enlarged photo
graph of the disputed check, enlarged
to about 80 times the size of the origi-
nal, also an enlargement of one of the
accepted signature of Macquarrie on
one of the documents admitted to be in
his handwriting. He entered into q
long analysis of the characteristic
features of the defeuGanG's writing, and
claimed that the body of the disputed
check bore all the distinguishing marks
of his writing. He illustrated upon the
black board the peculiarities of the
writing. He went into a long COM
parison of each letter and figure in the
alleged fictitious check with similar
characters in the numerous exhibits.
Such learned discourse on the dips,
spurs, angles, and curves of hand
writing has never before been heard in
the court room of Amador county
There were few letters in the disput-
ed check which he admitted he was un-
able to find fac SMILES of in the ex-
hibits, but these he said were attempts
of the defendant to disguise his writing.
One letter in particular was the capita al
j in the signature ~. D. W. Single
ton" He found nothing CORES pond
ing to this, and he claimed tais WAS a
sguised hand. AS a result of his in
vestigation he declared, without any
reserve whatever, that the face of the
disputed check was written by Mac
quarrie. He was positive of this fact.
He was as fully satisfied of it as though
he had actually seen him in the act of
writing the check. He was subjected
to long cross-examination by defend
ants counsel, A. Caminetti and boldly
announced at the close of the direct
testimony that he challenged the most
rigid cross to shake in
any respect the testimony he had
given. This feature OF self-laudation
was very pronounced all through his
examination. He succeeded in i'm
pressing every one in the court room
with the idea that he is thoroughly
posted in lis profession, and also with
the idea that no one is better aware of
this fact than himself. His examina-
ton was cut short Saturday upon the
conclusion of his crOss-eXamination. He
was not subject to any redirect-exami-
nation, as that would have necessitated
his remaining over until Monday, at
considerable expense. Toward the
close of his testimony it was evident
chat court, counsel, and jury were
getting tired of his demonstrations and
explanations. 1t is very doubtful
whether this expert testimony carried
much weight in the case.
Upon the assembling of the court
Monday morning, the prosecution, to
substantiate the charges of prior con-
viction, introduced certified copies of
the record showing the conviction of
NJ. A. Marquarrie, July 26, 1887, for
petty larceny, twice on the same day.
The defense objected to these docu-
ments, claiming they likewise had
transcripts OF the record, but on COM
pairing the same with those introduced
by the prosecution, discrepancy in
the spelling of the name of defendant
was noticed, and they therefore asked
that the matter of int. oducing these
documents in evidence might be delay
ed until the afternoon to enable in
quiries to be made to explain the dis
crepancies. The documents produced by
the defense gave the defendants cor
rect name, N. A. Macquarrie. The
prosecution thereupen closed.
For the defense, Neil A. Maco uarrie,
the defendant, was called in his own
behalf. He said he was 40 years of
age; had practiced law since November,
1893, first in Oakland, afterwards in
Stockton from 1894, and for the past
four years in Jackson. He gave
filmsy story of the disputed check,
substantially as follows: About the 10Th
or 18th of February last a man came to
his Office, who gave his name as Single
ton. He seemed TO be from the east,
and appeared a man of affairs, repre-
sentng that he was seeking Investment
In Lines. He asked defendant if he
knew j. M. Kile of Stockton; that he
pulled out a letter and seemed to read
from it, stating that If he needed in
formation or advice he, Macquarrie,
would be able to tell him anything in
that limo He told hin, of .o-,z