Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-07-17


at the house after an alarm had beel
turned in, the fire had been extiDguishet
and nothing but pile of smoulderini
rags remained to indicate that there hRt
been blaze there. A hole had beer
burnt in the floor about six inches II
diameter, and the door of the closet was
charred slightly but number of people
had arrived there before he and his
company, and the floor of the room was
wet as if hose had been played into the
clo:et.
! The prosecution then produced q num-
Der of witnesses to prove that at the time
of the fire the defendants did not have
the clothing for which they put in q
claim. The first of these was Jacob
| Will, the merchant tailor of 81 Spring
street. He positively denied having
made any clothes for Long since January
L, 1888, but admitted having made a
black corkscrew cloth suit on October 3,
1887, for which he charged $50 or 1858.
| Mrs. Christina Mclean, the mother OF
the complainant, testified that she had
known the present Mrs. Long before her
marriage. She was then known as Mrs.
Morris, and lived next door to the wit
ness at the corner of Seventh and Hope
streets. They frequently visited one an
other, and the witness had several
times inspected her friends wardrobe
at the latter's request. She described in
detail and valued almost every dress,
which was upon the sworn claim of the
defendants, and concluded by stating
that Mrs. Long told her few days be-
fore her marriage that she had sold
every thing she had except what was
then upon her back. Upon cross.exam-
ination the defense asked the witness a
number of questions, with the intention
of proving that she did not know the
value of the dresses, but the Court sus-
tanned the objections of the prosecuting
attorney in every instance. Mrs. Nc
Lean was then questioned as to whether
her daughter had not worn one of Mrs.
Longs dresses but the witness refused
to answer and said she was not RESPONSE
| BILE for her daughters actions. When
asked her age by the defendants attor-
ney she replied "In the patois of my
country Pm twenty and bedeck," but
the attorney insisted on her giving
her testimony in the patois of
the United States, and it was then ascer-
| tanned that she was AZ years of age. She
| was requested to state whether she had
ever worn dress valued at $3.50; but
beyond the reply, 81 have never been a
millionaire, but always wear Il good
Dress" the witness refused to go.
Mrs. Mary A. Whitney, dressmaker
| OF twenty years experience, was ex-
| amined at some length.
John Ell. Simpson, OF the firm OF Simp-
son & McInnes, merchant tailors, was
examined as to his having made some
clothes for Long; and M. Morley, testi-
fed to hearing Long say after the fire,
that it was fortunate he and his wife had
their best clothes on when the fire
O :curred.
The only sensational feature of the
proceedings was the placing of Mrs.
Bella Long on the stand. She was the
fourth wife of the male defendant, and
was divorced in the latter part of last
year. Her testimony was to the effect
that Long did not have the expensive
clothing he claims to have possessed
during the period that he lived with her.
The prosecution closed its case with the
| testimony of H. P. Sweet, an expert
| adjuster, to whom few questions rela-
| tive to fires were propounded.
The attorneys for the defendants then
moved the Court for the dismissal of
their clients, on the ground that the evil
dence was insufficient to justify the
| Court in holding them to answer before
the Superior Court. The Court reserved
it's decision until 8 80 o'clock this morn
| ing.