Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-07-30
The OAKLAND TRAGEDY
Startling Revelations by Rev.
Horatio Stebbins.
CAUSE OF THE SHOOTING.
Interview Between stebbins, schroder
and Lefevre.
THE THREAT OF DR.. srEBBINs
Full Report of the Testimony on the Pre-
liminary Examination.
ESPECIAL By TELEGRAPH TO ruz nuooHD-usros.l

Jill report OF the testimony on the Pre-
liminary Examination.
OAKLAND, July 29th.-In relation to the
statement in morning paper that Mrs.
Follansbee, the sister of Mr.. Schroeder, had
said that DR.. Lefevre had taken liberties
with her, Mr.. Follansbee says that his wife
never knew Dr. Lefevre at all, and it was
therefore impossible for the statement to
contain any truth. Mrs Schroeder was not
present in the witness-room yesterday, as
stated.
Dr. Lefevre had very large practice in
this city and in San Francisco, and had
grea. many personal friends. Beyond doubt
the sympathies of a majority of the com.
munity are on his side. The remarkable
testimony of DR.. Stebbins will have some
effect, however, when it is given to the pub
lie.
CONTINUATION OF THE PRELIMINARY EXAM
NATION - TESTIMONY OF REV. HoRATIo
sTEBBINS.
OAKLAND. July 29th.-Yesterday after
noon, DR.. Horatio Stebbins, called for the
defense, after being duly sworn, testified that
the prisoner was his son-in-la law. Mrs. Schroeder
was his daughter. Saw DIR. Lefevre six or
eight weeks ago. at the latter's office. On
Saturday morning, June 18th, Schroeder came
to witness house, in San Francisco, laboring
under great agitation. Witness endeavored
to compose him, so that he might tell what
the matter was. After time he said 81
had home once"
The testimony was objected to, and the at
torneys argued the matter at length.
The Court sustained the objection, saying
that the testimony was inadmissible on legal
grounds.
Mr. Foote-Do you believe that Schroeder
believed that Lefegre had had criminal in
tercourse with his wife?
DR.. Stebbins-Yes, do.
Mr.. Foote-Do you know that?
DR.. Stebbins-Yes, do.
Mr.. Foote-How do you know it!
This question was objected to by counsel
for the prosecution, and after considerable
argument on the part of counsel, the Court
sustained the objection.
MIR. Foote-What effect did that informa-
ton have upon the prisoner?
The question was objected to by counsel
for prosecution, and objection sustained.
Mr.. Foote-Did you hear, on or about the
18th day Of june that Mrs Schroeder
acknowledged to her husband that Dr.. Lefevre
had had criminal intercourse with her?
This question was also objected to, and
sustained by the Court.
Mr.. Cohen, of counsel for the prisoner,
gave his reasons for asking the last question,
and Zach. Montgomery, of counsel for prose.
cution, replied at some length, and the Court
then adjourned the investigation until $50
this morning.
STARTLING REVELATIONS.
= a. IL ~
asked if there were any further arguments on
the objection of counsel yesterday to the ques.
ton asked by DIR. Stebbins, what he had
heard Mrs. Schroeder say in the presence Of
her husband.
DR.. Stebbins again took the stand.
Mr.. Cohen held that it was competent to
produce evidence Of the condition of the
mind OF the accused. If temporarily derangsd
and acting under the provocation of gre 1t
wrong. the defendant is not guilty. ], does
not make any difference if the act chaI ged
against Lefevre was not committed il the
defendant believed it. If he had reason to
believe it that is sufficient.
Zach Montgomery, for the prosecution,
said he did not think an authority coull be
found for violating such rule of evidence
1t is an elementary principle of testimony
that hearsay testimony cannot be introduced.
He did not believe that any authority ex-
listed for hearing in testimony the statements
of the alleged paramour of the deceased,
when not under oath. If this hearsay testimony
is to be admitted, it is hoped the Court will
allow the prosecution to introduce testimony
in the same way.
Mr.. Foote said that the purpose of asking
the question of DIR. Stebbins, to the effect
that If on June 18th he heard Mrs. Schroeder
tell her husband that she had been seduced
by DIR. Lefevre, was to show that defendant
believed such to be fact. The fact of
seduction need not be proved il there is
sufficient testimony to prove that the belief
existed in the mind of the defendant; and it
is further to be proved from DIR. Stebbins'
testimony the unsettled and jaundiced coz
dition of his mind. The fact of seduction will
be proved by other witnesses-by the lady
herself, if Necessary.
COMPETENT TO ADMIT TESTIMONY TO PROVE THE
CONDITION OF DEFENDANTS MIND.
The Court held that 1t was competent to
admit testimony to show the condition of the
mind Of the defendant, and the only question
was how to obtain it. He thought that per-
haps the question was not admissible and the
facts could be obtained in some other way ;
the manners and condition of the defendant
would be proper to introduce in testimony.
The question that is asked may not show the
intimacy between the defendants wife and
the deceased, yet it may show the condition
of the mind of the defendant at the time he
received the information, and therefore it
shall be admitted.
DIR. Stebbins, the question being repeated,
said that on June 18th, he heard Mrs. Schro-
der tell her husband that she had crimi-
nal intimacy with DR.. Lefevre at the
been sent for by his daughter. When he en-
tered the house he said. MY daughter
what is this?' She threw herself on my
neck, and cried, 81 don't know"
MRS. scHRoDER's CONFESSION.
Edward then retired. / asked her to con-
fess the guilt. Edward then returned, and
she repeated it, and repeated it in his pres
ence and in mine. asked her in the presence
of her husband how long this had been going
on. She said that the first was two months
before. I asked her, and | asked her husband
il the dentist had bill against her for the
work he had DONE | asked if they had paid
ANYTHING. They said no. l said TO them, 81
don't know what sort of man this is, but if
you should confront him he might in inso-
ience offer you the bill in dentistry"
DIR. srEBBrNs' INTERVIEW WITH LEFEvRH,
AND HIS TERRIBLE THREAT.
proposed that Edward and / go to the
office of Iefevre and demand an account We
went to the office. An attendant called LIE
fevre out. 1 had never seen Lefevre before.
As he came out he came toward me as though
to accost me, and partially moved his hand
as though to shake hands. / drew back and
resented his approaches. demanded in an
imperious manner, Have you an account of
Mr.. Schroeder for dentistry" Yes. he had
He was tremulous and pale. Present that
account in items at once, sir, or l will
blow your brains out" That utterance
was, happily, given in my unarmed condition.
If l had been armed / would have committed
the deed, and my son should have gone free.
/ struck him on the shoulder. "TurH to
your books, sir" said. He quivered and
resented nothing. He opened his books,
turned over the leaves and turned them back
He turned first to his books, then turned to
his index. Where is your account, sir p
"Have you attempted 20 seduce my daugh-
terri demanded Have you been ent;c-
ing her here under the cover of professional
business? You kept no account" Upon
that. suggested to Edward, who was stand
ing at my left, "Write receipt sir" / said
to Lefevre, sin full for all work done for
Nv Schroeder, or his family, and sign it."
Mr.. Schroeder took bill-head and made a
receipt, and 1 directed Lefevre to sign it.
He signed it. told him, g If you ever meet
n y L