Los Angeles herald., 1890-05-11
THE CLARK CASE.
END OF THE TESTIMONY FOR THE
PROSECUTION.
The Defense Offers no Evidence and the
Matter Continued Until Next Saturday
Afternoon.

AT 80 O'Clock yesterday morning the
examination into the case against F. X.
Clark ct al, was resumed before Justice
Lockwood.
o. B. Carter, searcher of records,
with twelve years experience, testified
in effect that he was now in the employ
of the Los Angeles Abstract and Title
Insurance Company. He had re-
Gently made a search of the records of
Los Angeles county, with reference
to property owned by Miss P M. Sea-
man. AS the result of his labors he
found that Miss Seaman was the owner
of two lots on Colorado street, Pasadena,
one of which had GA feet frontage and the
other 63 feet. This property she derived
by deed from her sister, Mrs. Belle
Clark. The first lot was transferred to
her in February, 1889, for the considera-
ton of 81 800, and the other in October,
1889, for $4,000. This property was en-
numbered with a mortgage of ST 800
Miss Seaman had no other property in
this county.
NJ. S. Hewes, shoe dealer on Spring
street, stated that in October last, Clark
and two ladies', whom he represented as
his wife and sister-in-law, called at the
store, and the lawyer asked for credit.
The witness said that he did not do bust
ness in that way, whereupon Clark
stated that he was a responsible attor-
ney and that his office was on North
Main street. AS further inducement
he said that his sister-in-law, Miss Sea-
man, owned property in Pasadena val
ued at $4,000. He also referred the
shoemaker to man named Mitchell at
Sanborn & Wallis store. After talking
few minutes longer Hewes slipped out
and saw Mitchell, and on his return, he
found his clerk wrapping up some goods
into parcel, and that Clark
and both ladies had new shoes upon
their feet. Calling the lawyer aside,
Hewes informed him that his reference
not being satisfactory he must respect
fully decline to trust him. Clark
clustered around, and said that, as
Hewes had already trusted him and
given him thirty days in which to pay for
the shoes, he would have him arrested
if he dared to interfere with him.
Hewes insisted that Clark and the ladies
take off their new shoes. Clark re-
fused, and, as a last resort, Hewes
closed the doors of his store and told his
clerk to remove the shoes from the feet
of the ladies. Clark stalked up and
down the store, and suddenly darted
back and jumped out of the rear window
and ran down the alley. After the
ladies had left the store Clark came
round to the front and shook his fist at
Hewes through one of the show win
dows. He subsequently sent So, the
value of the shoes he ran off with, to
Hewes, and the matter was dropped.
Spencer M. Smith, an attorney, stated
that he had been associated with G. w.
Glowner in the case of Popple & War
ner VS.. F. X. and Belle Clark, a civil
suit brought to recover money due for
printing briefs in the case of Brant VS..
Clark ct al, in the superior court. The
suit was brought before Justice Savage,
in January last, and judgment was rem
dered for the plaintiffs. Miss Seaman
offered herself as surety on an under
taking on appeal, after the trial of the
case. On being sworn she said she
owned two lots and house in Pasa-
dena, worth from $4,000 to $500,
upon which there was a 81 800 mort
gage. In addition to this she swore
that she owed about $500, and that she
had $50 in cash, but had no other prop
erty IN this state. JuStlce savage mad
refused to accept her as a surety. The
court took recess at this juncture until
O'Clock.
Deputy Constable G. M. Smith was re-
called on resuming at that hour, and
was examined about the notice he found
posted upon the orange tree near the
house. He also testified to several con-
versations he had with Clark, when he
went to serve writs of attachment at
the house.
At the close of his testimony the pros
ecution rested the case, whereupon the
defense moved the court for the dis
missal of the defendants, Miss p. M. Sea-
man and Mrs. Belle Clark, on the
ground that there was no direct evil
dence tending to show that they were
connected in any way with the con-
spiracy alleged, other than that they
were there at certain times when Clark
obtained the goods; and further that
Mrs. Belle Clark being the wife of the
defendant, under the common law,
she could not conspire with
him, as she and her husband
were one. The court granted the mo-
! tion in as far as il concerned Mrs. Belle