Los Angeles daily herald., 1890-03-05

and once more the attorney was called
to order and the motion overruled.
Miss Joy was then examined, and
| testified that she was a teacher in the
Spring-street school, and knew the de-
tendant, whom she met for the FIRST time
on February 14th. Her school room was
IN the brick building near the Spring
street entrance. The defense entered
an objection, but it was overruled. She
then stated that while reading story to
her children Mr.. Whaling knocked on
the door and came in, taking a seat at
her request, while she continued her
story for some twenty minutes or 30.
Finally the defendant interrupted her,
and pulling out q pencil and te-book,
asked her what her name Was. He then
questioned her as to her grade, the hours
she taught, when she dismissed, and
wound up by asking if she had any OBJ
jections to his speaking to the class.
She then inquired his name, and asked
if he was member of the Board of Edu-
cation, and on finding that he was, gave
him permission.
The witness was about to tell the Jury
the effect his speech produced' on the
children, but the defense objected, and
insisted on her giving the speech first.
Miss Joy said that it was an impossi-
bility, as it was of fifteen minutes dura-
ton, and accompanied by violent gest-
ures. She, however, remem bered that
in substance, it was to the effect that the
children must study if they wished to be-
come good citizens of the United States,
and that they must do 30 while young,
because If they waited until they became
as old as their grandparents it would be
too late. he said the same thing over
and over again in different words. The
children began to laugh, and several of
mouths to prevent themselves from be-
sounded before the conclusion of his adj
dress, but he kept right on, until the
principal came in and asked the witness.
why school was not dismissed. She ex-
planned and went out into the hall, thee
defendant following her. His breath was
very strong and smelt of liquor and he
tottered.
On cross-examination the witness
stated that she knew the difference be-
tween whiskey tented and tobacco sat-
urated breath, aid the attorneys again
began discussion among themselves
until the court threatened to fine them
for contempt.
Mrs. Bradfeld, the next witness, testi-
fed that she had lived here fifteen years,
eight of which she had been school
teacher. She knew the defendant and
saw him at the Spring. street school on
February IA. She was in Miss Ben
coughs room when the defendant came
in, and he said to that lady as she turned
to leave, "Come here, l want you to
hear what have to say to this woman"
He then said that the witness was too
much her own "boss," and that he was
going to let her know that he was her
"boss," and that the Board of Educa-
ton was going to ''boss" her. He said
that she didn'G earn her p, ney and that
she was allowed to do j. as she liked,
but that he was going to put stop to
that. He said that he WAS going to have
her investigated, though the teachers
and Superintendent Friesner all stood in
with her. He also threatened to have
all their salaries cut down. All this time
he kept pitching forward and holding on
to the deck, and as he waved his hands
and sawed the air, she thought he was
going to hit her. After while the wit
ness left the room, and the defendant fol-
lowed her, hat in hand, down the hall to
her own private room. He at once
walked in, and putting on his hat, said:
whats in here ?" The witness pro-
ceeded to show him, and produced some
colored cnalks, which acted like a red
rag to mad bull. She made him take
off his hat, and being afraid to be alone
with him, left the door open. Finally
she got tired of his ranting, and told him
that she had seen all she wanted of him,
and to get out, whereupon he went.
On cross-examination the defeuse an.
deavored to show that the witness
brought the prosecution to cover up an
investigation by the defendant against
herself, but the court sustained the
objection on the ground that it was in
sultipg. Lawyer Stephens ard the court
had another tilt when the court sus-
tanned the objection to the effort of the
defense to show who prompted the wit
ness to swear to the complaint, and the
court again threatened to fine the at
torney for contempt. Nothing new was
brought out in the cross-examination.
The attorney for the defendant offered
in evidence printed copy of the docu-
ment sent to the Board of Education by
the teachers of the Spring-street school,
and the prosecution closed it's case. The
court then adjourned until 80 this
morning, when motion to dismiss will
be argued.