The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-03-18


She handed it to Wallace, and he handed
came into the Office, she was excited and
he thought she was crazy. Mr. Wallace
was asked whether prior to April 70, to
him or in his presence, Mrs. Dearborn
made threats against Crane, but Colonel
Haines objected, and the question was ac-
cordingly ruled = He had seen Mrs.
Dearborn subsequent to April q. 1880. A
question whether since that date he had
heard her make ny threats against Crane
was ruled out So also were questions as
to demands for money by Mrs. Dearborn,
and one as to threats since the commence
ment of the action.
Mr.. Preston made statement as to
where he thought the court erred in its
ruling They were not examining the
witness as to statements made by Mrs.
Dearborn outside of court contradicting
her evidence, but simply as to her conduct
out of court. The judge, however, de-
clined to change his ruling.
Under cross-examination the witness
said he had been acquainted with the
Dearborns since April 20. 1880. He was
asked whether he had met Dearborn since
the date of the check and whether he and
Mrs. Dearborn were living together OBJ
lection was raised, and after argument
testimony in regard to the relations of the
Dearborns was admitted. He had been at
their house once or twice a week for a
couple of months. He had been in Seattle
of and ON for fifteen years, the last time
for over q year, during which time he was
in Cranes employ as a general assistant,
but found it difficult to define his position.
He visited the Dearborns on his own ac-
count and not on Cranes behalf. On the
evening of April q he was in the Office till
between $3.50 and p. m, and Crane left
after $50. On the evening of April IL
Crane left the Office between and o'clock
and was not in the Office on that evening;
the witness was satisfied that he was there,
but did not know of that more than any
other evening.
You will swear that he was there that
EVENING"" asked Colonel Haines. After
long pause the witness answered: Eyes,
sir
On the evening of April 81 he did not
know at what hour he left the office, but
he believed it was about $3.50. On April q
he left between and 8. Colonel Haines
asked him what time he left on several
other evenings, named at random, with
the apparent intention of testing his MEN,
DRY on such daily details, but when he put
the question as to March II, Mr.. Wallace
said he could not remember, because he
had no circumstance to remember it by.
Asked whether anybody had asked him
at what hour he left on the evening of
April p, he replied that Mr.. Crane had
asked him three to six months later.
Colonel Haines then tried to learn how
Mr.. Wallace knew the time at which he
left the Office IN the evening, and was in
formed that he usually looked at the clock
or his watch. He had no occasion to do
so, for he had no fixed amount of work to
do every day. Since April 20 Dearborn and
his wife had still lived in the same house.
He had never slept in their house, but had
been in their sitting-room, dining-room
and kitchen. He simply saw them, with
out seeing anything to attract his aiten-
ton to any difficulty.
Two or three or four months ago Crane
asked him if he remembered what time he
left the Office on April q. He said, Eyes,
that day we got in so much work. We got
in more work that day than any other"
That was about the time the suit was COM
menced. He visited the Dearborns as q
guest and had meals with them OCCASION
ally.
Colonel Carr then offered in evidence the
note Mrs. Dearborn left for Crane as tend
ing to throw light on the relations between
Crane and Mrs. Dearborn.
Colonel Haines objected to its admis-
sion. saying that Mrs. Dearborn admitted
writing it and it was innocent on its face,
being simply bill. If they introduced
any note showing her motives of revenge
or demands for money, they had right to
do so. The court admitted the note and
Colonel Carr was about to read it. when
Colonel Haines again objected, on the
ground that its relevance had not been
shown. The objection was overruled and
Colonel Carr read the note.
Colonel Carr called fos the affidavit of
Mrs. Dearborn taken before Mr.. Latimer
and read it. 1t was admitted in evidence.
The deed of the lot in Plummer's addition
from Crane to Mrs. Dearborn was then
read and admitted in evidence.
Mr.. Preston offered the smallest enlarged
negative of the two checks-disputed and
genuine 1t had occurred to them that the
courts objection might apply to only some
of the negatives and proofs and they would
therefore offer them only singly and ask
for ruling on each one.
Judge Osborn said that under the law
they could not be properly admitted and
repeated his former objection, to keep the
record straight for the supreme court.
This form was gone through with each
negative and Photographic proof
o. A. Anrud, a farmer and formerly
Dearborn's partner, testified that he was
acquainted with the Dearborns and Crane.
He had been in the logging business with
Dearborn i'll removing timber from parts
of sections II and Is at Wayne station.
This is the logging-camp which Crane
bought from Dearborn He and Dearborn
were partners for twenty-one months.
The title to half the 160 acres of land was
in his name and half in Mrs. Dearborn's.
He eventually sold to Dearborn in January,
1880. his interest in the logging-camp, his
half interest in the land and the stumpage.
His half of the land was valued at $780,
with sixteen months interest at 10 per
cent. He received in all about s., 500. He
was asked what was the value of the prop
erty altogether IN January, 1880, but Col
onel Haines objected and the objection
was allowed He received 81 500 in cash
and note for 81 900 for money put in.
time and property. The note had been
paid long ago. He had given it to Judge
Burke about March, 1890, and it had since