The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-07-01
2la2;;s
mr. MURPHY BUILDING, i
Market and Jones Streets.
FROM ACROSS THE BAY.
A jury Goes Down TO Inspect
the Water Front.
ImpOstor Stone Runs His Length and Gets
Into Serious Trouble-Frsnk Parlin's
Illness Grows Worse

"The plaintiff rests" said A. A. Moore,
attorney for tue Water Front Company in
the suit to GUST V. l.. Forth, at so o'clock
yesterday afternoon.
1--WE move for a nOnsut, your Honor"
spoke Judge Cation, one of the attorneys
for Parlin. He then proceeded to give IL
reasons why his motion should be granted.
The chief ones were that the evidence had
not proven that the Water Front Company
was not in peaceable or exclusive possession
of the disputed waterfront land on June
C, nor at any time previous or subsequent
thereto; that the allegations had not been
maintained that the defendants had forcibly
interfered ON June or heretofore or there
after with plaintiffs, except TO prevent the
erection of an impossible fence: that no
part Of plaintiff possession had been in
terferedwith or changed or disturbed; that
the evidence proves plaintiffs TO have been
the aggressOrs in every instance upon the
30 session OF defendants after June G, and
thar one of the defendants. Barringer, had
been in peaeeable. undisturbed possession
from November ], 1891, 10 the lime of seiz-
ure by plaintiffs.
Il submit" said the attorney, 10 closing.
''tbat the law must be greatly enlarged to
allow the plaintiffs 10 maintain their posi-
ton"
ihr tOlbI
1.-The court can only dissolve this case
from The jury" said Judge Henshaw.
upon showing that there is no evidence
tending to show possession of the plaintiff.
The court Is not called upon to decide the
actual possession. as that must rest with
the jury. But so far as there is evidence
to show possession of plaintiff, the motion
for new trial must be denied"
Ii was then O'Clock and Judge Hen
shaw suggested to the attorneys that the
jury lie taken to the grounds IN dispute TO
get a thorough idea concerning them
We are willing" said Mr. Mullaney.
'We object" interposed Mr.. Moore, "unlil
all the evidence is in"
"It will save time and questions if the
jury makes an inspection Of the ground"
said the court. why do you object, Mr..
MooTe2"
1T will be more logical to " ait till all the
evidence is in" said Moore.
A DECISIVE JUDGE.
"Gentlemen Of the jury. the Sheriff, the
attorneys. aud all within my hearing" said
the Judge, deeisively, 1--WE will now pro-
eeed to the grounds, and yon must bear in
mind that this court Is still 10 session, and
that the same rules that govern you here
must govern you there. l will ask one or
more Of the attorneys on either side to
accompany us, ana the stenographer will 60
along. Any Information desired by the
jury on the grounds Will be asked OF the
court and IL will be given"
'We concur under these conditions" said
the railroad attorney. meekly.
Judge, jury, Sheriff, steDographer and
ATTORNEYS then went down and made an In
spectioD. subsequently returning to the
courtroom, where an adjournment was
taken until o'clock this morning.
EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES.
All day the courtroom had been crowded
to its utmost with listeners to the evidence
Several members of the Water Front Com
pany sat With their attorneys, and all of the
defendants in the action were there. F. r.
Townsend, captain Of.the sch oner Energy,
testified that Ii was necessary to remove
soms of the Water Front Company's piles
in order TO get his vessel In with the cargo
consigned to Fortin. L. Coulter had testi-
fed the evening before that he had been in
stracted 10 '..ive the piles by Robertson,
one OF the foremen Of the Southern Pacific
Company.
Other witnesses TO give testim ony were
MilitaFn Abbott, X. H. Woolsey, Charles b.
Iayl0, Secretary Hayes of the Water Front
conpehy, V. l.. Forth aud Cameron.
ASIDE! Pom details brought out and bon mots