Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-03-15
AfternoOn Session.

his testimony at once.
Justice Savage said he could not per-
NIT this, asait would be out of order. A
witness for the prosecution was on the
stand and the prosecution had not con-
cluded it's case.
District Attorney Kelley also objected
to the taking of his testimony at that
time.
Justice Savage said that he could be ex-
cused for the day and Mr.. Brooks turned
to leave the room. As he passed out of the
door he used a strong epithet toward
those who had subp9naed him as wit
ness.
Justice savage-Bring Mr.. Brooks
back into Court.
Mr.. Brooks having been brought into
the Court by the constable, stood before
the bar.
Justice Savage-What did you mean
by such conduct in the presence of the
Court?
Mr.. Brooks-I was not aware that l
had said anything in the presence of the
Court at any rate l did not intend it to
apply to the Court.
Justice Savage-You will appear here
at 5 O'Clock to show cause why you
should not be punished for contempt OF
Court.
Justice Savage said that he would
have acted at once, only he did not de-
sire to be hasty.
Continuing in the case Justice Savage
ruled that the District Attorney had no
| right, under the complaint he had filed,
to go into disturbances prior to the date
fixed in the complaint.
Mrs. Graf, continuing, stated that
since February 26th she had heard
noises at night.
Cross-examined: Used to wash dishes
and clothes for the McCormacks. l
never heard them make a noise, but
objected to the people that went there
and made noise at night. l have been
trying to sell my place. / said Mr. Nc
Cormack could buy it if he wanted to.
l wanted to get out. CAT this point some
of the men in the lobby made noise,
and as the Court had warned them sew
eral times before the courtroom was
cleared The McCormacks needn't have
bought the property if they did not want
it.
The attorney for the defendant asked
the witness if she had ever been told
she could get no more liquor at the Nc
Cormack's. She became quite indig-
nant, and denied that she had ever asked
the McCormacks for liquor. Mrs. Nc
Cormack had given her beer, wine and
whisky.
Sheriff Aguirre testified that he had
arrested the defendants at the Flag Cot
tage on Jefferson street.
The People rested at this point.
The attorney for the defendants moved
that the court instruct the jury to bring
in a verdict of not guilty under the evil
dence. He urged that the neighborhood
had not been shown to have been dis
turbed as charged in the complaint.
Only one person residing in the vicinity
had testified, and she had not sworn that
she had been disturbed. The prosecu-
ton had failed entirely to show that
anybody in the neighborhood had been
disturbed, and even if the woman who
testified had been disturbed, she was
not the neighborhood. Then the COM
plant set forth that the house was dis
orderly between February 26th and
March 9TH, but this had not been shown.
The only act testified to was on the 26th
of February. Neither had there been
any evidence that the house was one of
public resort, as was charged in the
complaint. He therefore moved that
the court instruct the jury to acquit.
The District Attorney argued on the
other hand that he had proven that the
house was disorderly.
Justice Savage said that all questions
of fact must be submitted to the jury,
and he denied the motion.
THE DEFENSE.
After short recess, the defense COM
menced its case by placing w. w.
Slocum on the stand. He testified that
he is carpenter and resides on Monroe
street, about 450 or 500 feet from the
Flag Cottage. There are several families
living within one-half mile of the Cot
tage. He did not hear any disturbance
in that neighborhood between the dates
mentioned in the complaint, nor had he
heard any since he had been there. If
there had been any disturbance at the
Flag Cottage he would have remembered
| it.
On cross-examination he testified that
he had worked for the McCormacks-
that is, he had done some work for them.
There might have been disturbance
there and he might not have seen it. He
was in the habit of going to bed between
8 and 10 O'Clock in the evening. He had
never been to the Flag Cottage after
night, and never went then except on
business. His relations were friendly
with the McCormacks.
Mrs. S. E. Slocum testified that she
was the wife of the previous witness.
She had never heard any disturbance at
the McCermack's within the dates men
toned in the complaint.
Cross-examined-The wind blows from
our house toward the Cottage. Never
had been awakened at night. Don't
know the McCormacks.
w. j. Ahern testified that he resides
about 800 yards west of the Flag Cot
tage. He had heard no disorder or noise
at the Flag Cottage.
Cross-examined = Witness testified
that he had sold hay to Mccormack ever
since he had been there. He had been
in the habit of going to bed early in the
evening. The wind generally blows
from his house to the Flag Cottage.
Mrs. Bertha Frohlein testified that she
lived on the Howe tract, about ten lots
away from the Flag Cottage. She had
heard no disturbance at the Flag Cot
tage.
Cross-examined-I live directly west
from the Cottage. The wind blows FROM
my house towards the Cottage. My hus-
band is barber on First street. l never
was at the Flag Cottage. There might
be disorder at the Cottage and 1 would
NOT hear If