The record-union., 1891-01-30

short time before the discovery was
made she noticed that her daughters
maid was very inattentive and stupid.
Mrs. Blenders, relative of Mrs.
Croker, who is visiting at the mansion,
gave evidence in confederation OF the tes-
timony OF preceding witnesses.
Miss Winnie Quinn and Mrs. Mary
Cook, the housekeepers, Swore that Miss
Gehring would not come to her meals
with the other of the servants, but always
appeared obliging and tried to please
everybody.
Miss Quinn stated that on Christmas
the girl made al OF the servants in the
| house presents. To one She gave two
! pairs of gloves, to another bottle of
cologne, and to the witness she presented
handkerchief case. She gave the coach
man necktie pin. A couple of days
afterwards the servants showed their
presents to Mrs. Giilig, and they We're
almost dumbfounded when she coolly re-
marked, why, these all belong to me-"
AS it was after O'Clock in the after
noon, recess was ordered till P. NJ.
MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED.
At the evening session the prosecution
called Mrs. Giliig to the witness stand
again to testify to the fact that she had
worn the dress, in the pocket of which
| was found the diamonds and Mr.. Gillig's
ring, She said she had worn the dress a
number of times, and a1terward gave it
to Miss Gehring. The witness also stated
that when she discharged her maid after
discovering the missing property in the
trunk, the girl attempted to steal a costly
comb from the bureau, but was detected
| and prevented from doing so.
The prosecution closed, and attorney
White asked the Court whether or not he
thought it necessary for the defense to in
troduce any testimony. He said he
proposed to move that the defendant be
discharged on the grounds that n case had
not: been made out by the prosecution.
| They had merely proven that the defend
ant was III possession of the property,
and all courts held that mere evidence OF
! possession, without other circumstances
and facts, was not sufficient testimony to
warrant conviction. The circumstances
| that We're shown outside of possession,
were consistent with the innocence of
| his client. The dress in which the dia-
monds were found had only been in the
| possession Of the defendant two or three
days, and it was reasonable to suppose
that the jewels We're in the pocket when
| the garment was given her. She made
no attempt at concealing the dress, but
| hung it up in her closet. Neither did
she lock her trunk nor hide it away.
Mr.. White held that if the testimony of
| the prosecution did not show that the
defendant was innocent, it certainly
proved that she was insane. No sane
person WOulQ nave acteu as she hdQ after
having stolen such valuable property.
| City Attorney Hart commenced an ar
gument against the granting of the mo-
ton to dismiss, but was interrupted by
| Judge Cravens, who stated that it was
unnecessary to argue the question. He
denied the motion made by the defense.
HELD TO ANSWER.
Charles Rath, a young German, was
called to the witness-stand by the de-
Tense to prove the reputation of the girl
for honesty and Integrity. He said he
went to school with her in Germany
about six years ago. She was always re-
garded as trustworthy, and had held
position of responsibility there.
| Otto Lang OF San Francisco testified
that the girl came to his home after she
had been discharged by Mrs. Gillig. and
asked that she be permitted to remain
there for a few days. She SAID she had
| been badly treated in Sacramento, but
did not mention the fact that she had
been accused of theft.
Mrs. Roberts, the governess employed
| by Mrs. Gillig to take care of her child,
was asked to testify concerning certain
| hat which the defendant had trimmed for
| Mrs. Gillig. She said that she saw the
girl working on q large blue hat, which she
intended TO give to Mrs. Gillig for
| Christmas present.
The case was submitted without argu-
ment by both sides, and Judge Cravens
made an order holding the defendant to
answer before the Superior Court. Bail
was fixed in the sum of 5000.