Amador ledger., 1902-06-13

0tocklOn, ana Macq uarrle took 1t to
the Red Front store, and bonght bill
OF goods amounting to about So and
presented the check in payment, and
received the balance in cash. The
clerk seemed to demur, and Macquar-
rie told him he would be responsible
for it, and thereupon wrote his own
name on the back of the check. He
noticed that in the body of the check
his name had been written N. A. Nc
Quarrie, form which he never used
himself, and noticing this he wrote the
endorsement in the same manner, so
that there would be no discrepancy.
Heard nothing further about the mat
ter until March 10, when Mr.. Glukfeld
came to his Office and told him he had
a letter from the boss. that the check
he had given him was no good. Talked
with Kile over the telephone, and when
he told him that he did not know
such q man as Singleton, and had
written no such letter, he realized that
he had 'been done up" He was ar
rested on March 16. Sheriff Gregory
sent word THAI he wanted to see him.
Went to his office. The sheriff asked
him if he had done anything about it
yet, and also if he had been in
trouble before in San Francisco. He
replied what trouble. He said, SIS it
not a fact that you served eighteen
months in the house of correction in
San Francisco" Told him no. He
then said, 81 knew you would deny
that, but it is no use to deny it; l make
pretty thorough search when 1 go
after anything" He then pulled a
picture out of his pocket and asked if
that was his picture. Finally, he said
it was no use to argue the case, that
he had warrant for his arrest on
charge OF forgery, and he was locked
up. Defendant testified that he wrote
no portion OF the writing on the face of
the check; the only writing he did was
the signature N. A. McQuarrie on the
back. Had not made the check good.
Found that people were going to make
trouble about it. He was arrested in
San Francisco on two charges of petty
larceny the same day, with a man
named j. A. Nelson, and convicted in
the police court, but on appeal on
habeas corpus these judgments were
set aside and he was discharged.
II. G. Bole testified that he had per-
sonally examined the records of the
police court of San Francisco. He
identified certain documents produced
as being in his hand writing, except the
certificates attached. They were judg-
ment OF the superior court reversing
the judgments of the police court in
the case of N. A Maquarrie on the 26th
July, 1887. There we're only two cases
on the records - ..ing tae rame OF n.
A. Maquarrie OF u. \. Marquarr. or
any name like it. The names of J. A.
Nelson and N. A. Maquar were COM
bined in all the papers except the
judgments. Could not tell how the
name Macquarrie was spelt, but there
were only two cases having such
name. These documents showing that
the charges Of prior convictions as al
legged in the complaint were not true,
were admitted in evidence, against the
strenuous objections of the prosecution.
Jas. Jay Wright was next called, and
testified as an expert in writing. He
had had much to do with handling de-
fendant' S writing in the past two years,
having type written most OF his work.
He showed in clear and forcible way
the radical difference between the
handwriting OF the defendant in the
admitted documents, and the writing
in the disputed check. He produced
for Illustration an enlargement of the
signature, 81. D. w. Singleton" en-
larged to six times the size of the
original. He gave it as his opinion,
based upon close examination of over
30 checks in the defendants hand
writing, that the defendant did not
write any part of the face of the dis
puted check.
In the face of the documents pro-
duced by the defense, the district at
torney asked to be allowed to withdraw
the charges of prior convictions, and
all the papers bearing thereon. He
admitted that some one had erred. He |
was unable to straighten out the mat
ter, and did not desire to press this
point under the circumstances. The
defense objected to the withdrawal in
that way, and preferred that the mat
ter inasmuch as it had been presented |
to the jury, should be passed upon by
that body.
G. II. Crocker, H. D. Emerson and
j. L. Sargent testified that in their
opinions the handwriting of the dis
puted check was not that of the de-
fendant.
S. N. Spagnoli and G. D. Calvin were
called on subordinate points, and the
case closed with brief rebuttal testi
mony for the people.
Arguments were commenced Wed-
nesday morning, and occupied the
whole of the day,
The jury retired to deliberate upon
their verdict about 8 o'clock in the
evening. About an hour afterward
they asked for all the documents intro |