Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-07-31
THE OAKLAND TRAGEDY.
schroder's Preliminary Ezamina-
ton Continued.
ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY.

ADOlllONAI LID llmOIS i I.
The Defendant Tells the Story of
His Wrongs.
| ESPECIAL BY rELssRArH TO rHx REcoRD-uSIoN.l
OAKLAND, July 3Oth-The preliminary
examination of Edward f. Schroeder, charged
/ with the murder Of DR.. Alfred Lefevre, was
resumed before Judge Yule in the Police
Mr.. Follansbee were present with the de-
PENDANT. The Courtroom was crowded with
spectators.
| CHARLES Z. HAvENs' TESTIMONY.
Charles d. Havens, stockbroker of San
Francisco residing in Oakland, was called by
| the defense / have known Mr.. Schroeder for
about three years, and have seen him almost
every day. He was always very bright and
cheerful up to the 18th day of June last.
| Subsequent to that time he seemed to have
met with some great sorrow that could not
| find out. He has been very much detected
every day. One night, about three weeks
ago, met him at Hannifn's saloon, told
| him something was the matter, and asked
him what it was. He said, "God, if I could
only tell you" went home with him and
we afterward walked the street at his sugges-
| ton. have seen him every day OF so since.
He was always an intimate friend of mine.
| noticed from his manner and bearing that
he was in trouble before he spoke of
it. i cannot be sure about the time
that l noticed his detection, but it was
about the 18th of June. He seemed broken
down all at once. have never seen him
since the first time l noticed his detection.
cheerful and bright, like he formerly was.
saw him Oh last Saturday on the boat going
over to Alameda. He was the same before
the trouble commenced. A friend and myself
shot at the shooting gallery and Mr.. Schroeder
refused to shoot. l saw him on Monday last
on the boat and walked with him up the street
in San Francisco. He seemed in a worse
condition than before l do not recollect any
reference to his trouble that morning, but
think he spoke of some great sorrow. That
was the last time saw him previous to the
shooting.
Mr.. Montgomery then began the cross
examination. The defendant never told me
what the trouble was. He appeared broken
down and absolutely detected, as though his
mind were somewhere else. | have seen him
since the shooting. He seems gloomy, but
more composed in mind than he was before
the shooting.
TESTIMONY OF GUsTAvE FREDERIoKs.
Gustave Fredericks, an accountant in the
London and San Francisco Bank, was next
called. He testified: l have charge of the
outside Office and of the employees there. /
have known the defendant since 1872. He
was assistant note teller at that time. Since
lo% 10, fa1 10 Ea.I,
then to receiving teller, then to exchange
teller. 1 have seen him almost every day
since that day. Prior to the 18th of June, or
whereabouts, he appeared to me to be very
cheerful, open-hearted and social On June
18th he had a conversation with me about
his leave of absence, which is left to me to
decide. I permitted him to leave on June
18th to june 2Sth. On the 18th of June, be-
fore the bank was opened, he came in, but
did not go through the passage where the
clerks usually come. He went directly into
the managers Office, where l met him. L
saw that he was agitated and that some
thing had happened. He said that
he was unfit for work, and must
leave, even if he lost his posi-
ton. He wanted to take his holiday
then, to which I did not object, though / |
should in other circumstances. He left. 1
asked Mr.. Knight, one of our clerks, to see
MIR. Schroeder that night or the next Sunday
and to tell him to be at the bank on Mon
day, which was collection day, on which all
clerks are expected to be present about noon |
time. On Monday morning at the usual
hour he appeared at the bank. From what
l had seen on the Saturday before, 1 made |
it my duty, to keep an eye on him, fearing
that something might happen which would |
interfere with his position or injure the
bank. / think he left about l o'clock that |
day AT noon time he came to me, and in
tears confessed that he had been greatly |
troubled and if it were not for his family he
might do differently than he was doing at |
that time, referring to his position. He |
seemed to be Indifferent whether he lost his |
position or not. On Saturday morning he |
ing as though he was man that had not |
slept for nights. HE condition did |
not seem to be the result OF drinking. |
When he came in Monday he was cooler but |
his mind was depressed. and there was a
gloom over him which have seldom seen in
a man. He has always been good clerk, |
and he was willing to do anything on that !
day. Since that time-between the 18th of |
June and the day of the shooting-he asked |
me to give him as much work as possible. |
Once / sent him TO the Pacific Mail Steam !,
ship Company. When he came back | asked |
him if he noticed any one going off on the |
steamer to which I sent him. He said he
had not noticed anything particularly. One
day since, think the 9th of July, DR.. Steb- |
bins came to the bank. The doctor had |
asked the manager for leave Of absence for
Schroeder, and then he asked me for permits
sion, which gladly gave. l told DIR. Steb
bins that was afraid, if he remained in his
then state of mind, he would lose his posi-
ton.
Counsel asked the witness if, from his OBJ
servation, he thought Schroeder would lose his |
position?
Mr. Montgomery objected, on the ground
that il was not evidence and immaterial;
that the facts of the case should be laid be-
fore the Court, and not the observations of a |
witness.
MIR. Cohen replied that the testimony was
most material. The Witness as the superior
officer Of Schroeder, was in constant contact |
with him, and his observations would be ma
terial in fact, it was the best evidence.
District Attorney Gibson said the state of
the mans mind was an effect, and unless the |
witness was an expert he could not testify to |
the effect of actions produced on the defend |
ants The conduct and department of the
defendant is testimony, and the expert can |
decide the condition. 1t is for your honor to
decide the effect on the mind. The condition
Of the defendant, his manner and appearance, |
his actions may be introduced.
The Court said that in the Toombs will |
case the Supreme Court decided that the tes-
timony of Father who gave the sacrament |
at the moment of dissolution concerning the
condition of the mind of the deceased should |
be received. 1t seems that the case of the |
witness here is similar one
Mr. Montgomery remarked that the priest |
wss an expert, and his testimony could be
received.
Mr.. Feote held that the witness was as
capable of observing the condition of the
defendant as Catholic priest of the man
who desired the communion administered.
The objection was overruled and the reply |
was, DECIDEDLY So"
The cross-examination then began. After |
the vacation Of Schroeder, he returned on
june 18th. was told he went on the over
land train. He asked me to give him all the
work 1 could, as he wished to occupy his
mind. He did his work well until he left us.
He was away, think, from the 9th of July
to the 10Th. He left ON tMonday, the 18th |
instant about o'clock in the afternoon. He |
had sufficient intelligence to transact his BUSH