The record-union., 1891-02-19

room. To get into my bedroom person
coming in the back door would have to
pass through two rooms.
Before Gloss came in, he knocked at
the bedroom window several times.
~ heard noise at the back door, and
in moment Gloss was in the room. The
door opened with very little noise. /
heard no crashing sound. / examined
the lock afterwards, and there was moth
ing broken.
There was light in the bedroom.
had my two children in bed with me, one
| said to him, You have no business
here" and that he should walk right out.
He commenced talking to me, and while
he was talking he was taking his clothes
off.
:" He disrobed entirely down to his un-
dershirt. l remained in bed all the time.
AS quick as he had his clothes off he
jumped into the bed, threw the bed
clothes over and lifted up my clothes.
We did not wake the children up.
was pushing him away from me. He did
not beat CT strike me. He did not accom-
phsh his purpose. He then got up,
dressed and went away.
He didn't hurt me, but tried to keep
me down
In the latter part of October, about
ten days after it occurred. l told nv hus-
L
stated here. After talking with my hus-
band he said he would fix Gloss, and he
would demand $1,000 from Gloss; and I
sat down and wrote a letter to Gloss de-
manding Sl.G00. l first went to lawyer
about it i'll January, 1888.
Gloss called on me while I was in
San Francisco, about three weeks after
this trouble. He called again between
Christmas and New Years, and saw my
husband and myself. He called on me
and my husband at those times in San
Francisco to try to settle'
The defendant was ~ witness in his
own behalf and testified that he had a
ranch OF eighty acres, about one mile
from the town of Auburn, on which he
had resided for about four years; that in
February. 1887, he desired help on his
ranch and advertised for it: that in an
sWer to the advertisement the plaintiffs
came to his ranch, and the wife went to
doing household work and the husband
ouside work for him; that they then left
and moved into the Collins house. which
was about ten minutes walk from his
house; He then says: In October she
told me her husband was going to San
Francisco. l went to her house about
half-past ten or eleven o'clock. | did
not know whether Lind had returned or
not; | knocked at the window and asked
If Lind was there, and | asked her to let
away and come tomorrow. Mrs. Lind
told me that he was not there, and then I
went around and went in by the open
back door. = s.
1.-THE door was not locked, / was not
obliged to put my shoulder to the door,
and made no unusual effort to get in.
When | lifted the thumb-latch the door
opened readily.
~ went in the bedroom, and Mrs.
oh ,IrJi
bed ana put it in an adjoining bed.
undressed myself and stayed there a
couple of hours. Mrs. Lind asked me to
come back the following day. I saw her
next day and the day AFTER and she was
not sick at all.
Mrs. Lind asked me for the use of my
buggy TO go to the station, and [ myself
took Mrs. Lind 10 o'the depot in the bGgoy
the second day after this night. She gave
me her address in San Francisco and in
vited me to call when I went down.
L Wentto see her in San Francisco, and
she there told me that her husband had
suspicioned something and she had told
him only of this one night when he was
away, and that her husband was mad,
and | should give him a few dollars. s.
% 1 saw Mrs. Lind in the presence of
Mr.. Sullivan and there told her that she
knew | never had used any violence, and
that it was all done with her will. She
admitted that. She then said she wouldn't
like to go to Auburn, and if | would pay
$500 she would not.
3" Il never used any violence on her, and
never made any assault upon her. Ey-
erything was done with her will and con-
sent
1.-THE husband was called as a witness
in rebuttal and testified: Had conyer-
sation with Gloss about Christmas, 1887.
and he told me about having connection
wit
1887, and that he had never done so
before
'"This was substantially all the testi-
mony in the case, and the question is. did
it justify the verdict?
THE court instructed the jury that the
complaint charged a violent assault made
by defendant upon the person of Mrs.
Lind, and that she was debauched against
her consent and will; that the case turned
upon the question of violence, and that if
violence was used, as charged, then they
should find for the plaintiffs; but that if
no violence was used, the connection be-
ing with her consent, then the verdict
should be for defendant.
The instructions were the law of the
case, so far as the jurors were concerned,
and they We're bound to follow them.
whether they deemed them correct or not.
AS to whether violence was used or
not, the testimony was conflicting. Mrs,
Lind stated positively that violence was
used, and the defendant stated equally
positively that it was not. If the case
had been rested on this conflict alone,
the judgment, under q well settled rule,
would have to be affirmed. But other
facts and circumstances appeared which
seem to us to initiate strongly against
the truthfulnesS of Mrs. Lind's state
ments.
'rhe following examples may be noted:
She testified that defendant did moi oc-
c0mptiSh his purpose, and that she told
her husband about the matter as she had
told it in court, and yet the complaint.
which was verified by the husband and
filed in February following, charges that
he did accomplish his purpose, and this
defendant in effect admitted both in his
answer and testimony. How is this dis
crepancy to be accounted for?
''She further testified that she did not
tell her husband Of the outrage which she
had suffered for ten days. though she
was made sick by it and so continued for
a considerable time. Is it probable that
Il woman would, under such circum-
stances, remain silent SO long in the pres
ence Of her husband?
1.-The defendant testified that two or
three days after the alleged offense. when
Mrs. Lind was about to leave for San
Francisco, she asked him for the use of
his buggy to so to the station, and that he
took her TO the depot in his buggy; ard
this is not denied. Now, is it conceivable
that a woman, who had been treated as it
is claimed she had been, would so soon
ask or accept such favors from the man
who had committed the wrongs against
her?
Defendant further testified that Mrs.
Lind gave him her address in San Fran
cisco, and invited him to call on her there;
and this is not denied. Now, is it possible
that she would have done so if she
had been assaulted, as stated, two days
before?
Again, defendant testified that on one
occasion, when he saw Mrs. Lind in San
INpn ha tO1 ho,. g