Amador ledger., 1902-04-04
Preliminary Examination
Held Monday.
Evidence for Prosecution Gone In
Fully-Held to Appear Before
the Superior Court.

Goldner in the supervisors room on
| Monday last. The district attorney
represented the people, and A. Cami-
netti and D. B. Spagnoi appeared for
the defendant. The interest which
has been taken in this case from the
outset manifested itself at the exami-
nation, the room being filed with
spectators during the progress of the
trial.
The first witness was Joseph Gluk-
field, clerk in the Red Front store. He
said that the defendant came into his
store on the Goth of February of this
year, and purchased two shirts and a
collar, and presented check in pay
ment for $50 on the Farmers and
Merchants Bank of Stockton. 1t was
signed 81. D. w. Singleton" The
check seemed strange, and he remark
ed about it, the defendant replying
that it was all right if he indorsed it..
Macquarrie wrote his own signature on
the back. and he thereupon took the
paper and deducted the amount of his
purchase, S2.10, and gave him the bal
ance of S47 80 in cash in change. He
kept the check until the end of the
month. On the 2Sth he sent it to
Vacaville, to the main store, and on
the 9th of March it was returned with
the words indorsed on the back, mo
such account in bank" Next morning
he went to Macquarrie's Office to see
him about it. Macquarrie told him
that he took the check in payment for
legal services, for which he charged SIS,
and paid Singleton the S35 balance.
He promised to look the matter up.
He said that Singleton drew the check
in his office on the day it was dated;
that Singleton lived on California street
in Stockton. He wanted to see the
check, but the witness refused to show
it. About 2 o'clock the same after
noon he gave the check to Sheriff
Gregory, and they both went to Mac
quarrie. Macquarrie told the sheriff
that Singleton came to him with
letter from Kyle, asking him to locate
claims, and he charged S25 and gave
him the change. He gave a descrip-
tion of Singleton to the sheriff. The
sheriff telephoned to Kyle who said he
knew nothing of such transaction.
The defendant was asked to show
Kyle's letter, when he replied that the
letter was not written to him, but to
Singleton.
G. 81. Keagle, cashier of the Farmers
and Merchants Bank of Stock ton, was
next called. He had known defendant
for four or five years. Had done busi-
ness with him in the bank. Did not
know any man by the name of 50. D.
w. Singleton. No such man had ever
had an account with the bank since it
started. Was acquainted with Mac
quarrie's signature. A number of
checks, all drawn by Macquarrie on
the bank and honored, we're shown to
witness and he was asked to compare
the signatures with the name of Nc
Quarrie as written in the body of the
spurious check. He replied that a part
of the writing was similar.
u. S. Gregory and G. P. Vicini testi-
fed as to the identity of the alleged
fictitious check produced, with the one
identified by Glukfeld.
E. G. Rust identified a document of
two pages as being in the handwriting
of defendant, some of which had been
written by him in his presence.
c. L. Culbert produced the iudg-
ment roll in the case of People VS..
Gilbert, showing the defendants sig
nature to several of the document
and VIM. Tam identified check which
he received from defendant, which was
dated JAN, 1901. All these exhibits
together with the checks were admit
ted in evidence, 10 all told.
THE EXPERT TESTIMONY.
Carl Eisenschimel was the star wit
ness of the trial. He was summoned
as an expert in handwriting. He is
from San Francisco. He stated that
he had followed the profession of ex-
pert examiner of forged and ques toned
handwriting for 26 years. He is the
regularly employed expert of the police
department of San Francisco. He had
testified in about 800 cases of disputed
handwriting. He was one of the ex-
perts in the Fair will case, also in the
celebrated Becker forgery case, in
which draft issued by the Bank of
Woodland on the Crocker Woolworth
National Bank was raised from S12, 900
to $22, 900. and the work was so cleYerly
done that the draft was honored at the
bank. He also took part in a noted
criminal trial at Willows, involving
the validity of three deeds.
He gave a very entertaining talk on
handwriting. Every PERSONS hand
writing possessed characteristic pc
culiarly its own. 1t was not possible
for any person, according to his view,
to divorce himself entirely from these
distinguishing peculiarities. Certain
strokes of the pen were caused by the
action of certain muscles, and other
features were the result of combina-
tions of sets of muscles. A man could
no more entirely hide his penmanship