Los Angeles herald., 1891-03-27
HENRY STILL ON TRIAL.
THE EVIDENCE IN THE EDELMAN
TRIAL YESTERDAY.
An Absent Witness Delays the Case-Lau-
terio Tells His Story--The Court AL
lows No Side Talk.

hour set for the resumption of the Edel-
man trial before Judge B. n, Smith and
jury in department one of the superior
court, the prosecution called Frank Lau-
terio to the stand, but the witness failed
to respond to the summons, and a deputy
sheriff was despatched to hunt him up.
Assistant District Attorney McComas
announced that Lauterio would be the
last witness for the prosecution. While
the court was awaiting the return OF the
officer, Judge Smith admonished the
district attorney on the frequent
delays that had been occasioned
by the absence Of witnesses
when they were needed, and
after waiting for several minutes, or
dered recess until IL o'clock. At that
hour, however, the deputy sheriff an
nounced that he had been unable to
find Lauterio, whereupon a bench war
rant was issued for the missing witness,
and another recess was ordered until
/ 80 O'Clock.
When court convened for the after
noon session the missing witness, Frank
Lauterio, was on hand, and Judge Smith
at once proceeded to reprimand him se-
verely for not being in attendance when
needed in the morning. Lauterio ex-
planned that he had been detained at
home, owing to the sickness of one of
his children. His plea apparently proved
acceptable to Judge Smith, as he at once
stated that he had no desire to make an
example of him, and would be lenient
With him this time; but he wanted it
distinctly understood that all persons
who disobeyed the processes of his court,
in, future, would be severely punished.
Lauterio was then recalled to the wit
ness stand, but Mr.. White objected to
his being examined on any matters, ex-
cepts those which hadsbeens brought out
in the .cross-examinati0n an objection
which WINS promptly overruled by the
court.
The examination of the witness was
then proceeded with, and on being
dence on the previous day, identified
to Edelman by himself.
On cross-examination Lauterio stated
that he was employed as deputy in, the
ing asked whether or not he ran away
stilu lCtndl1ACu AukltlVO 1IOA JudtlCC
until brought back by the sheriff. the
on. the. ground that by doing so
was then shown the stubs of the
auditors warrant books during the
time he was employed as deputy, and
was unable to remember the particular
nj ,oto fha
of each individual warrant. Mr.. White,
howev subjected him to most Sc
we're examination, and forced the ad-
mission from him that the handwriting
on each of the stubs was his own, and
that he had filled them in himself. The
defense then produced the four indict-
ments against Lauterio, and be was
asked by Mr.. White whether Or not
those were the matters upon which he
feared to give evidence, because by so
doing he would incriminate himself.
The witness lost control OF his temper at
this home thrust, and the prosecuting
attorney took up the cudgel on his be.
half. The matter was warmly argued
| by the respective counsel, until the
court fhterposed with the stern rebuke
| that it would not have any of that side
talk
| Lauterio admitted that he had had a
conversation with the district attorney
upon his return from San Bernardinc
Sin the society OF the sheriff during
the summer Of 1859, but to the surprise
Of the spectators it was not shown what
the conversation was.
At the close of Lauterio's cross-exam:
ination the court adjourned for the day
The case will be resumed at 10 O'Clock
this morning.