Los Angeles daily herald., 1886-05-20
A Jury Secured Yesterday
Morning.
OF PROSECUTION
The Defendant on the Stand, Tes-
tifying in His Own Case.
Continued.

| ton seemed 10 bnlnk any one Oh tn'
sporting fraternity might be partial tc
the cause Of the Major. At one poin
ia the panel fifteon names were can
vassed to get one Juror. Finally the
twelve had been decided upon, whost
names, ages and place of birth are
Andrew Saunders, AZ, Maine, express
man, city; Robert B. Guthrie, 81, Ala
bams, farmer, Orange; Abraham M.
Hathaway. So, assachusetts. farmer,
Santa Ana; James N. Gregory, "a. Iowa.
cigar dealer, city; August @. Temple,
"a, Germany, brioklayer, city; Henry
James, IS, England, farmer, San Anto.
MO township; Henry c. Bailey, 81,
Kentucky, farmer, Wilmington; Delos
Campbell. So, New York, livery bust.
ness; John Allen, 81, Ohio, farmer. Pas.
adena; George Cummings. 81. Austria,
stock raiser, Los Angeles; Richard
King, 40, Wisconsin, farmer, Santa Ana;
Edgar r. Coffman, AZ, Virginia, farmer,
Azusa.
1t was after ii O'Clock when the panel
was complete. All day long the court
room was dsnsely packed with great
crowd of people, anxious to know the
course events were TO take.
The first witness for the prosecution
wes G. W. Knox, Esq, Deputy District
Attorney. He testified that he was
present in Jus ice Ranney's Courtroom
upon the preliminary examination OF the
defendant, when he admitted that he
wrote the article headed "Was it His
Wife," that he was the editor OF the
Porcupine and was the proprietor of the
paper.
The Prosecuting Attorney asked the
witness if anything was said at the time
OF the preliminary examination az to
who was the author Of other articles on
the same page Of the Porcupine as ap-
peared the article headed "Was it His
Wifey" The defendants attorney OBJ
iected to the question, as it was an at
tempt to surprise the defense and intro.
duce matter not noted in the complaint.
The objection was sustained by the
Court.
A copy of the Porcupine dated Feb
ruary 9th, in which appeared the al
legged libelous article, was offered in evil
dence, bat the defence objected, as the
paper contained other matters than those
upon which the libel suits were based.
Judge Fitzgerald cited authorities upon
which he based his claim. He argued
that Major Bell had written articles
against Colonel Wells previous to the
one headed, s'WAs 1t His Wife," which
proved that the one mentioned in the
information was written in a spirit Of
malice, He also read a decision made
by the Supreme Court of Connecticut
covering the case in hand, and stated
that he could pile up decisions on the
same point. The defense had no author.
tiles at hand, and asked time to investi-
gate. The Judge was willing that they
should do so. Rev. P. F. Bresse was
called and testified that Colonel G.. Wiley
Wells Yves member of the Methodist
Church in good standing. In answer to
question by W. T. Williams the wit
ness stated that he did not know that
Colonel Wells was ever connected with
any other denomination.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
When the case opened at 2 o'clock
the prosecution introduced in evidence
the articles in the Porcupine of the 9th
of February. headed as follows; 1.-THE
Delectable, sherman on Wells, His
Crown of Glory" "Wined and Dined
With the Beast" and "Was She His
Wifef"
Col Wells then took the stand and
testified In substance as follows: 81
have examined the article headed WAS
1t His Wifef" and pronounce it false.
s-sxamination-I deny that /
dined with Mr.. Baldwin with woman.
was at the hotel with my wife, and
Mr.. Baldwin invited us to dine in side
room with him instead Of in the main
dining room. We did so. / do not
recollect that Miss Perkins was there.
Mrs. Dexter, Anita Baldwin and another
lady were there. The latter person
was not introduced to; thought she
might have been an employs of Mr..
| Baldwin.
@ Did your wife wear diamonds,
A.-She may have. She dressed as
ladies usually do.
Q.-How long were you dinings
A.-May be 40 hour.
0--You were Mr.. Baldwin attorney
were you mott
Al was in one particular CASES
water Sc.
Q.-Is it fact or not that the Metho
dist Episcopal Church trembled when
| this article was published?
Al do not know. l am an humble
member OF the church, ana If a member
acted as the article said did, he should
and would be expelled.
Q.-How long have you been mem
Der OF the Methodist Episcopal Church
Al cannot say definitely; ] joined
about 1868.
The prosecution objected and was sus
| tanned.
Q,-How long was it before the Per-
kins Baldwin trial that you were IN
Baldwiu's dem
| Al never was in den, sir.
| Dwell, call it house, then.
| Al was at the hotel in the spring oil
1888.
Odd you recognize the lady in the
dinIng-room as Miss Perkins?
| A.-No, sir. l thought at the tint
she was governess. She sat opposite
to me and farther down the table.
| Q-How do you recall the location
where the lady sat and do not recognize
herr
| A.--As she swore on the witnes.
stand that she sat at dinner with US
l would not have been able to locat,
her. In recalling the circumstances,
thought the lady present was larger
woman than Miss Perkins.
| Odd you not know at that tim,
that Baldwin was lecherous brute,
This prosecution objected. Baldwin
is not on trial. Objection sustained al
not being proper ross-examination.
| The prosecution here closed thei
case.
| MAJOR HORACE BELL
Then took the stand. THE article ties
lifted to by Mr.. Wells as being false il
absolutely true"
The witness was asked to relate the
circumstances under which the article
headed, "Was She His Wife" was writ
ten. The prosecution objected to the
question. The witness must first prove
the truth Of the article. A long argu.
ment followed on both sides.
During the short time that Major Bell
was on the stand the attorneys on
either side were engaged at each moment
malice, etc., etc. The prosecution also
objected to the witness giving run
ming comment on the testimony he
was presenting. The gist of Major Bells
testimony, so far as elected, was that ht
had published those articles without
malice towards Col. Wells. He re
marked that he had criticised his friend
Holton much more severely than Col
Wells, but that they were on very
friendly terms. He claimed that afteI
their publication he had met Mr.. Well
in spirit of friendliness. He had heard
both stories-frst that it was Col
Wells wife who dined with Baldwin
and also that it was not his wife. HI
had no opihion about the matter. Thu
people took much interest in the matter
and he gave the stories that the public
might know all the facts. He did no
know which state ment was true.
The Court at o'clock adjourned tn
case to 10 A. NJ. to-day, stating that h
was.not well, aud requesting the specta