The morning call., 1890-05-08
Evidence of Witnesses in the
Pratt Trial All In.
No New Facts Developed Yesterday-An Ex-
pert's opiniou-The Attorneys Sum
ming Up the CAss

OOlng NNe0 lie stated III al lulcINl6M ludJ
his wife was good and pure woman. All
that Richard could say WAS that Pratt ap-
peared pale and disturbed.
John Lathrop, an Oakland Tribune re-
porter, was called to testify for the prose-
cution, and stated that he had seen the
defendant in prison soon after the shooting
occurred"
Ibid he state substantially to you at that
time that his wife was i'll and mentally I'M
soundP
This was objected to on the ground that
only his exact words could be offered. The
Court sustained the objection.
MIR. Hosmer then proposed to recall the
defendant, and an objection was overruled
on the ground that he was subject to the
same rules as any other witness.
PRArr's DENIAL
Pratt then took the stand and was asked
if he had not stated to MI Lathrop, while
in prison, that his wife was sick and men,
tally unsound. He denied most positively
that he had.
did you say to MI Rickard, after the
shooting, sthat your wife was virtuous
woman?"
81 did not"
Defendant, on cross-eXamination, stated
that his relations with Lathrop were not of
friendly nature because of certain things
published by him in the Tribune favorable
10 Bromweu.
Both Rickard and Lathrop were recalled
and reiterated their testimony in regard to
the statements made to them by Pratt sub
sequent to the shooting. Attorney Foote
adopted buldozng tactics with Mr.. Lath-
Top, but desisted on the Judge expressing
a hope that there would be no display of
feeling in the case.
The next witness to be called for the
prosecution was 5. C. Strickland, who bore
evidence to the fact that he had rot seen
pistol in Pratts possession since the day of
the shooting, and who denied that he had
ever said that he saw a pistol in Pratts
hands few days prior to that occurrence.
did Pratt say toyou Just after the shoot
ing that his wife was pure womau"
81 could answer both yes and mo-
Pratt threw himself on my neck aud wept
bitterly, saying: Strickland, my wife is
pure woman"
Ibid Pratt say to you that he was living
with his wife so as to use her in this trial?'
mo, sir. He did say that he was living
with her under the advice of his attorney.
He said also that when this trial was over
lie would provide small amount for her
maintenance and leave her"
OVERCOME BY EMOTION.
The witness was then submitted to a
cross-examinAtiOn by Mr.. Lloyd, and stated
that at the time of the conversation Pratt
was laboring under great mental excite
ment.
"When he had told me his story" con-
tinued the witness, Il said to him, George
you cannot afford to uphold that woman's
conduct any longer"
" What did he reply?"
He sank on the sofa like dead man,
and seemed overcome with emotion"
Dr. Robertson, q nervous specialist, was
called, aud in reply TO a lengthy hypo-
thetical question, in which the case was
outlined, gave 1t as bis opinion that man
acting under those circumstances would be
in condition of mind to know right from
wrong He admitted, however, that under
different statement of the case he might
see cause To change his opinion.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
The defense recalled Daniel Meyer, and
he repeated his testimony that Pratt had
told him before he had seen his attorneys
that Cromwell had debauched his wife.
A recess was then taken until 80 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Proceed with this case, Mr.. Foote," said
the Judge when court Teopened at 1870
o'clock.
Warren B. English was the first witness
on the stand in the afternoon.
" Did you see the defendant in Jail ?'t
al did"
How long were you in there ?'
For couple OF hours"
" Did you hear Mr.. Lathrop ask MI Pratt
IL he had any statement to make p
- Yes, sir"
"What did defendant say ?''
" He had no statement to make"
" That was q small cell, was il not 2"
" 1t was. There was room but for few
people IN there at one time and l could hear
all that was said"
That Will do" said Attorney Foote, and
turning to the Court, he remarked, THAT is
our case"
THE PROSECUTION TALKS.
Assistant District Attorney Hosmer then
arose TO sum uD the case for the prosecu-
tion. He said in substance: THE defense
in this case has set up the plea of insanity.
They have endeavored to show to you that
at the time the defendant committed the act
with which he is charged was not in con-
dition OF mind to form an intent. The
court, l think. will tell you that the test of
insanity is the knowledge of right and
wrong. If it can be shown that the defend
ant knew the difference between right and
wrong il will be your duty to convict him
on the charge which has been preferred
against him. If, on the contrary. gentle
men, when you have considered we'll the
testimony which has been submitted to
you, you are convinced that the defendant
was in that condition of mind which would
have made it Impossible for him to know
what was right and what was wrong, it will
be your duty to return a verdict of not
guilty.
But the evidence has shown that at the
time the act was committed his mind was
clear lie admits that on the night pre-
Vious to the shooting he retired to his bed
and slept. That on the following morning
he arose, went through the ordinary routine
OF his daily life, ate his breakfast, took
from under his pillow pistol, came 20 San
Francisco. He remembers distinctly all he
did UP to and during the time of the shoot
ing. lie recalls clearly his meeting with
Mr.. Meyer and the conversation which took
place. Not only does he remember all this
but his testimony shows that he can recall
all the little details. Was this the act of a
man insane II when he went into the
Office to shoot Cromwell he knew he was
doing wrong he was not insane, and should
be punished. leave it for your to decide"
KNIGHTS APPEAL.
When Mr.. Hosmer closed Attorney
knight took up the case for the defense
and said, in substance: sit will be my lot
TO present to you, as briefly as possible, the
facts and the evidence introduced in sup
port of the theory advanced by the defense
IN TINS case. 1 hold IN my hand copy of
the information which was filed against
George G. Pratt, and to which he has
pleaded not guilty."
Mr.. Knight then read the charge. and
argued that had Cromwell died the defend
ant would, following out the charge have
been a murderer. He then defined what
mulder was. and explained that In order to
convict human being Of that crime it is
necessary to show that he was actuated by
malice. Proceeding, he showed that man
in defense of life, person or property
might resist the entertainments Of his fel-
low-inen by force
The laws" he continued, says to the
humblest Digger Indian, with but two
pieces OF redwood bark above his head,
that no one has a right to violate the
sanctlty OF his babitation, humble though
u be. II says TO him, gentlemen of the
jury, You viii kill any one who attempts
To enter and steal your property Is this
all that it says2 Shall only life and prop
despOiler? Shall honor count for nauabt
and may man not do that in defense OF
his home and his honor which he would do
TO save his life or property? The law is
fair, ana, when a mans fame and honor
are at stake, will it fail him then? / think
not. gentlemen. Nor do | think it Will
hold him responsible for an act committed
while insane"