Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-04-12
IN DEFENSE.
Evidence in Behalf Of Hat
tie WOOlsteen.
HOW MINNIE WAS TREATED
She Did Not Know Where Hattie
Was on the Night of Oct0-
ber the Sixth.

In Judge Cheney'S court yesterday
morning, the attorney for defendant
asked permission to further cross-ex
anime Mr.. Joseph, which was grant
i'd. Mr. Joseph testified, turning to s
certain page in his book, that DR.
Harlan had pawned diamond rinl
to him for 800. He said I have nc
entry Of the amount paid to me as 9
whole, SO went outside and borrow
ed the 500 l loaned him, so the book
only shows that he paid me $40. O
this, ST. so was the interest on the loan
and 81. SO the amount he owed me on
account OF watch he had pawned to
me on previous occasion and had
redeemed without paying up all the
interest. There is nothing in my book
to show that loaned him any money
on the ring. My book simply
shows the amount due to me
on two loans, but not upon what arti-
cles he borrowed the money. can
not give the date of the loan.
Between the 22d and 25th of Septem-
ber there is no entry which would tell
when I took the ring in pawn. l am
aware Of the fact that the law compels
me to keep a full record of all pledges
on which loan money, but I explain
this by my statement; that got the
money on the outside and consequent
ly made no record of it. The ring
was redeemed on October 4th. There
is nathing in my book to prove this,
but / tell you that the entry l have
read to you gives me the whole his
tory of the transaction, and as I am
not on trial and have explained that
1 cannot always force man to take a
pawn ticket when he leaves a pledge
with me. The law compels me to
give ticket for every pledge, but l
cannot force man to take the ticket.
Redirect examination: The ring
was redeemed from me on October
the 4.h. have not seen the ring
since that time. My instructions were
to give Degarmo the money when the
ring was pawned, that is, was to
give Degarmo $25 of the $1Q0 when
the ring was redeemed. l gave it to
Harlan himself on the 4th of October.
This finished the case for the pros
ecution, and Colonel Wells asked that
the jury retire while he presented his
motions. So ordered.
Col. Wells then moved that the
Court strike out testimony which was
irrevelant and immaterial. This in
cluded that of the gunsmith's clerk,
who testified that he had sold pistol
he could not identify to woman
whom he could not identify. This
branch of the motion also included
the testimony of Adams, the proprie-
tor of the store, who testified that he
kept pistols of the same make as that
found in the gum grove. After read
ing the testimony, counsel said that
he could see nothing in the testimony
connecting defendant with the pistol.
He also moved to strike out the testi-
mony OF Mr.. Simpson, who testified
as to the nature OF the cut in the back
of the buggy, on the ground that wit
ness did not connect Hattie with the
cutting of the hole. The speaker also
desired the testimony of w. N. Hart
stricken out. This witness testified
to the finding of the tin can and
the rag in the grove. E. E.
Burman's testimony in relation to see
ing carriage containing Harlan
and Hattie driving along the
road. , was also objectionable to
the defense OF, tne ground that
witness did not identity Fne de.
fendant. Ccctanssesil also .c..'ked anaD
thee testimony of H. L. Jordan
he struck out. This witness had tes-
tilted to being introduced to Hattie by
HarlanSwhen the carriage stopped in
front of his house and Harlan asked
him about certain lots. The evidence
of Harry Griffin, who testified to the
finding Of rag at the grove, was
thought to be unconnected with the
case. The testimony of the other
boys in relation to the finding Of the
rag tied around the branch above the
hole was as Objectionable as that OF
the others. That of M. w. Chick, in
relation to the hiring of buggy, the
condition of the same and of the cur
tain, was thought by counsel for de-
fendant to be unconnected with the
case on the ground that the cut was
not seen by witness until after the
buggy had been run away with and
had been in the repair shop. Mrs. S.
Snook's testimony in relation to see
ing Hattie az Mrs. Barbey's lodging
house when that lady died, was asked
to be removed from before the jury
on the ground of it's immateriality.
This included all the evidence OBJ.
jected to by the defense, which asked
that it be taken away from before the
jury before the defendants case was
opened. because 1t had mt h.. oo,,
.....ou IN any manner with the de-
fendant, and tended to confuse the
jurymen.
The District Attorney said in reply
that he thought the testimony should
be allowed to stand, for the rea: on
that while not connected positively
with the defendant, it contained facts
taken in connection with others that
pointed in certain directions, and, so
pointing, should be allowed to be
taken into consideration by the jury.
Judge Cheney said that he did not
feel justified in striking out any of the
testimony. This was cause where
the charge, if proved at all, must be
proved by circumstantial evidence,
and whether that chain of evidence
was connected or not was matter
for the Jury to determine. The mo-
tions to strike out were denied.
On motion of the District Attorney
the pistol, can, watch, jawbone,
buggy curtain, clothing, etc., were
marked as exhibits in the case.
Mr.. Stevens then moved, under a
section Of the code, that the Judge
advise the jury to aequit the defend
ant on the ground that the evidence
did not tend to convict her.
Judge Cheney denied the motion,
saying that he did not even desire to
hear argument on the motion.