Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-02-19
THE DEFENSE.
E DENIES ALL CHARGES

/ ~> A&AsAGo hhA
Attorney Denis Produces Some Yer,
Startling Documentary
Evidence.
Yesterday was an interesting day il
the More Young trial in the United
States District Court, owing to the fac
that the defendant occupied the witness
stand throughout the day. The interest
| in the proceedings has limo wise abated
and there was the usual sprinkling ol
spectators when, at 10:30 O'Clock, Judge
Ross took his seat on the bench, and the
Deputy Marshal, tapping his gavel on
the desk before him, announced the
opening OF the legal day.
my first witness," said Attorney
Grady, who appears for the defense, sis
Mr.. W. More Young" and every eye
turned in the direction of the witness chair
as the defendant took his seat. He is a
young man, being apparently not more
than % or 80 years of age and denoting
his British nationality in both demean-
our aud attire. At first little nervous,
he recovered his nonchalance as the
questioning went along and gave his
answers very emphatically in reply to
the interrogations by his attorney. In
the direct examination he claimed a
complete ignorance of the process OF
wine.making. He stated that he was
not practical man on the subject either
by training or research and disclaimed
to even know the object of the fortifying
tank in the wine-room. His testimony
was complete disavowal of any cogni-
Zance Of crookedness, and such was the
status Of things when. on the opening of
the afternoon session, United States
District Attorney Denis commenced his
cross-examination on behalf of the
Government.
Mr.. Young having acknowledged that
he was the Secretary for the Fruitvale
Company, doing business at Fresno, and
other routine matters, the prosecutory
evidence proper began when Mr.. Denis
picked up from his desk mass of corre-
spondence and asked the witness, "Did
you, on January 81, 1886. write to Mr.. E..
W. Hilgard, Professor Of the University
of California, on the subject of the wines
made by the company 2"
II object" shouted Attorney Grady,
before the witness had time to answer,
and, continuing, the defendants repre-
sentative stated that any such letter
would be inadmissable as evidence, on
account Of its being simply the decla-
ration of the third party. A, long
argument followed, during which Mr..
Denis said that his object in producing
the letters was to show that the defend
ant was cognizant of the fortifying of
wines and not 80 ignorant of the process
and technicalities of winemaking as he
was posing by reason of his evinepce.
The Court ruled in favor of Mr.. Denis,
whereupon objections came thick and
fast from defendants counsellors, one OF
whom said that if letter were written
to John Jones by VIM. Smith saying:
"Dear Jones-I am very sorry that you
committed the murder last week." it
could not be held as evidence against
Jones for murder, or otherwise it would
be easy enough to get convictions against
any individual by such a method.
Further objections were also made
grounds that the defendant, could not,
US Secretary, be responsible for the acts
done in the name of the corporation, and
ulbO DcCduSo tucTo WcSs hOtuluS W provo
that the letter offered had been written
by Professor Hilgard.
All of the objections we're ruled down
by Judge r ss, who stated that he would
FIRST look over the letter and see that it
did not contain matter beyond that at
tributed to it by Mr.. Denis, and this
mode of procedure was then followed.
After examining the document the Court
held that it could be introduced as evil
denee and it was accordingly read to the
jury amid further protestations on the
part of the defense. 1t proved
to be an advisory letter regard
ing the best modes of perfecting
wines, and also containing matters relar
tive to the most approved forms of con-
ducting the business. Laying it aside
MIR. Davis picked up another epistle from
the pile before him and asked the defen-
dant if he recognised the document, Mr..
Young inclining his head in affirmative
reply.
Counsel for the defense jumped up
again with the same objections as before,
but they were ruled out in like manner
and the same programme was enacted as
before. 1t was from Messgs. Lachman
| & Jacob, commission men Of San Fran
cisco, and related to deal between the
Fruitvale company and that establish.
ment.
The production ef third letter was
met with more vigorous objections than
before on the part of the defense They
said that in order to make the letters ad.
missibe, what had passed on both sides
must be produced and the correspond
ence thus blended together.
MIR. Denis said that he had.no way of
getting the letters written by Mr.. Young,
and the court, in reviewing the appeal ,
said that the correspondence was a cir
cumstance and should be put with the
facts and circumstances of the case
"What the prosecution wishes to dis
cover, said Judge Ross,. ''is whether
the returns are false, andif 80, did the
| defendant know them to be false when
he sent them to the government, and
therefore all the circumstances must be
admitted"
Defendants attorney stated that he
wished to enter his objections to every
letter that might be sead, and the court
80 directed the official reporter.
Mr.. Denis then proceeded to dissect the
epistles, first getting the defendant to
identity them and then reading them to
the jury. They were mostly communi-
cations from Messrs. Lachman & ia.
cobb, relative to a shipment Of 16,500
gallons of wine which had been pur-
chased from the Fruitvale Company for
t37H cents q gallon. The documents