Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-07-30

and quiet. In the evening we called on Air.
Bliss, and Edward seemed to have an hour
of quiet. We took two rooms with doors
connecting, and wheeled the bed so that he
could see me. Once during the night he arose
and attempted to get out | gently re-
strained him. He did not sleep, and / heard
him groan during the night. We walked
about town the next day. He was in the
same depressed condition. We attended the
Methodist church, and while there he saw a
man enter with his wife and two children.
HE GAVE CRY OF AGONY,
Raised his hands to his head and cried "Oh."
We harnessed up that afternoon and he
drove. We intended to go up to Santa Rosa.
During the drive he only made categorical re-
plies to my remarks. When some distance
on the road some piece of the harness gave
way. Edward found man to repair it. He
remarked on the kindness of the man. and
said he supposed he had happy home. We
drove to Santa Rosa and passed q similar ex-
perience during the night as we had the night
before, except that he once rose and walked
about the room. The next day we went to
Healdsburg 1t was very hot. He said he
did not care if the heat killed him. | sug
gested that we go to the Geysers. He asked
if it were place of any interest. He did not
seem to care to CO. but wished to be with me.
We took a fresh team there and drove to the
Geysers that night. The road was rough,
neglected, narrow and billy. Edward
drove, and at times more rapidly than
l thought was safe. l took the reius at
times. At the Geysers we were unable to
obtain room with two beds, and
So we shared the same bed. He was rest
less during the night, grooming and wished to
rise. The next day after visiting the princi-
pal Geysers and then returning to Heads
burg, he fell into the customary mood of talk
ing of his distresses. tried to comfort him
and reassure him, and promised that what
ever happened he would have my care and
my support. told him that the wrongs We
suffered were as great to his wife and to me
as they were to him. Returning to Santa
Rosa, we had substantially the same expert
cree as the night before. The same charac-
teristics substantially were noticeable.
thought he was somewhat calmer, and there
was improvement in his condition. We
visited the prison at San Quentin and then
returned by the boat to the citY.e When on
the boat he expressed his satisfaction at hav-
ing been with me and hoped he would be bet
ter. He said he would return to his family,
and spend the succeeding days of the week
with his family and return to the bank on
Monday.
THE scHRoDERs IN CHURCH.
On Sunday he and his wife came to church.
/ noticed in church that he had gone back to
despair. He did not remain during the en-
tire service. | knew first he was gone by a
note given me by the sexton. The note was
"Dear-Forgive me. l cannot stay in" 1t
was signed by his initials. After service was
concluded met him at the gate. His wife
Joined him and we walked to my house. He
had gone back to the same despairing condi-
ticn as when he was at the bank. He and
his wife left the house for Oakland. / saw
him on the next Monday, the 10Th instant, at
my house. My wife was staying there at
that time. He was in condition of great
excitement and depression. He stayed till
Friday, the 23d. He went TO the bank occa-
sionally. On Thursday and Friday was en-
coucaged in his condition. | did not see him
again until after the shooting. l think | saw
him few minutes AFTER in the evening after
the shooting. He seemed quiet and self.pos-
sessed. There was an entirely new phase in
his life since June 18th. He has been always
cheerful kind, affectionate and very happy,
especially among his friends; but immedi-
ately the whole tone of his bearing was
changed.
CROSS EXAMINATION.
The cross-examination then began, con-
ducted by Mr. Montgomery. | have known
Mr.. SHREDDER, said the witness, about nine
years. He has been married to my daughter
about eight years.
Counsel asked if the marriage was with his
consent.
The defense objected to the question as
irrelevant and not cross-examination.
The question was finally withdrawn.
The question was asked if the witness
knew Me-. SHREDDER had suspicious of improper
relations with any one before June 18th.
Objection was raised.
The Court here took recess.
As DIR. Stebbins related the story of his
daughters shame he was often very much
affected. and at times gave way so that he
was unable to speak.
INSTRUMENTATION RESUMED.
The objection to the question was sustained.
The Court then took recess.
After recess the cross-examination was re-
sumed. Witness testified that the distress in
the mind Of the defendant was caused by his
wife's intimacy with DR.. Lefevre and for
other reasons that he knew of.
He was asked how long after the marriage
of Mr.. and Mrs. Schroeder the first child
was born.
Counsel for the defense objected.
Mr. Montgomery claimed that evidence to
show that the wife of the accused had been
untrue before marriage was competent, as it
would show that other causes influenced the
mind of the accused than the confession of
his wife. He also held that Mr.. Schroeder
had no right to believe the statements of
such a women.
The objection was sustained.
The question was asked what Mrs Schro-
der told her father when he went to her
house on June 18th. The Doctor said he
had asked her concerning her relations with
Lefevre. She said that he had been to the
house the night before, and had been there
three or four times. He asked her if she had
submitted herself to him. She said she had
She did not specially state the times or places
when she submitted herself to him. When
Edward first came to witness to take him to
his house on June 18th, he went with him to
Oakland. He advised Edward and his wife
of the wrongs the deceased had done, and
counseled them to endure the wrong then,
and the witness went to DIR. Lefevre's office,
and the conversation related in the direct ex-
animation occurred. He said that when Dr.
Lefevre denied that he had been at 1164
Alice street the night before he said he lied,
or was liar.
Mr. Montgomery asked If the defendant
had ever made any threats against the life of
DIR. Lefevre.
The witness replied that the accused had
once, during period Of great depression,
said he was tempted to kill DIR. Lefevre.
DIR. Stebbins testified further that the de-
PENDANT lived with his wife after the 18th of
June, except when he was out of the city
Mrs. Schroeder is Is or 26 years of age. When
the receipt mentioned above was given by
DIR. Lefevre, no money was paid Mrs.
Schroeder was at home in Oakland during her
husbands trip to the Geysers.
OTHER TESTIMONY.
DIR. Brooks was recalled by the defense.
He was asked if conversation in the room
in which the first shot was fired could be
heard in the operating room. He replied that
be thought loud talking could be heard.
+. G.. Mcfarland testified that he had
KNOWN the defendant for seven or eight
years. He had seen the defendant often of
late He formerly was of social and cheer
full disposition. Since June 18th marked
change could be noticed. He was very diff
ferent from what he had been. It was
thought he was drinking. His distress in
creased from day to Gay. When asked for
the cause of his distress, he would say he had
great deal of trouble and had nothing to
live for, and such remarks. He drank great
deal. Witness saw the defendant between IL
and l o'clock the day Of the shooting. He
spoke of having to go back to the bank, and
that he could not stand it. He seemed more
depressed than ever.
scHRoDER's BRoTHER-IN-LAw.
A. w. Follansbee, the brother Flaw of the
defendant, testified that he had known the
accused for about eight years. l never knew
q more cheerful man than he was prior to
june 18th. Recently he has been very diff