Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-04-01

IL q m. and pm. some day the latter part Of |
january. The parties we're about twenty feet l
away from the witness. He did NOT know the
parties. and could not tell the day Of the week
or month.
TESTIMONY NOT ADMITTED
Harry knight, an engraver, employed in the 4
geological survey, said he knew the defendant
and had known him since 1883. Was with him |
nearly every day Of that year.
The district attorney attempted to show by |
the witness that the defendant carried q revolt |
yer at that time.
Mrs. Lille ". Foster, living at 1888 street, /
said she knew the defendant and in 1889 had |
done some work for him.
The district attorney asked the witness il the |
defendant had not drawn pistol on her and |
threatened to shoot her, but the court thought
that the time was too remote and the witnes.
was excused. The district attorney then stated
that he had several other witnesses whose testi-
mony was in the same line, but in view Of the
courts ruling would not call them.
Leroy B. Willett Of 1900 Connecticut avenue
said he knew the defendant He stated that
be received q revolver from him in May, lsss.
Pistol received by witness from the defendant
identihed.l Defendant said he bought from
Walfords store on the avenue.
The witness said that he met the defendant
on street between llth and l2th streets about
10 days before the shooting. The defendant
links, and stated that he had married one Of
them but that he was going to get rid finer.
The witness stated that he WAS not intimate
with the Hamlink family. He stated that he
came on the stand against his will and that be
had no idea how the district attorney got hold
Of the fact that he received the pistol from the
defendant
Judge Wilson moved to strike out the testi-
timony of the witness on the ground that twss
properly testimony in chief, but the motion
was promptly everruled.
JOS ". MArTKeLY.
Jos ". Mattingly. q police detective, stated
that he was present when Rollins Malone testi-
fed the other day for the defense,
and said that when Malone left
the court room after testifying witness
followed him to the Capitol and over to the
House side. He learned there was a man en-
ployed there named Foster, bat that he was a
white man.
Judge wilson-Aren't you detective in this
case?
witness-Not more 30 than in any other.
Haven't you been shadowing the witnesses in
this case2
Only this one.
What have you been doing - q detective in
this case?
Anything the district attorney requested
me to do.
The witness said he had looked for Malone
before he came on the stand, but had not in
quired for Foster at the Capitol until today.
EFFECT OF A BULLET ON CLOTH.
DR.. Schaeffer, the deputy coroner, was re-
called, and said that he had made several hun
dred examinations Of the fiber Of cloth for the
government and importers, and many exami-
nations during the last three years Of holes
made in clothing by pistol bullets
What is the effect of q bullet upon cloth?
The hole is generally visible to the eve, and
almost invariably the bullet takes out wad of
the cloth and drives the piece before it, The ball
leaves an irregular hole and the edges OF the
cloth a,e always fiayed. lie had examined the
clothes worn by the defendant the night of the
| shooting, but had been unable to find any in
dications Of bullet holes in them.
Without concluding DIR. Sehaeffer's examina-
ton recess was taken at 1890 until 1:l5.
After recess the overcoat, undercoat and
| vest worn by the defendant the night of the
| shooting we're handed to DR.. Schaeffer, who
| said that he had examined the clothing very
| infinitely.
Did you find any evidence Of pistol bullet
having passed through them:
| did.
Judge wilson-we object
| The court-On what grounds, Judge?
Judge Wilson-Oh, well, let it 60.
DR.. Schaeffer said that he had examined
every piece Of the clothing, both from the out
| side and from within. but found none of the
marks invariably made on such materials by a
bullet.
The holes in the clothing were not large
enough to lead him to believe that a bullet
had passed through them, except the one
in the vest The fbers Of the vest on the
frayed. 'f Beneath the s' lap psn Of Sn' the Ss
| vest was a tear one and q half inches long bu;
| it showed absolutely no indications of its hav-
ing been made by bullet. The white piece
Of tape beneath be .s the, the lapel was mo,
at short range leaves an unmis-
taxable stain on cloth, especially if the cloth
be az q stout material. He had found no such
stain on any of the clothing.
The coat worn by the defendants wife at the
| time of the shooting was then exhibited to DIR.
| Schaeder. and he was asked if he any dis
| celebrations on the cloth of that coat He re-
piled TINT he found decided discoorations made
by the bullet on Mrs Schneider's coat Even
where the bullets had passed through two and
four layers of the cloth in Mrs Schneider
coat he found decided marks of tho bullet.
The overcoat OF the defendant not ID
thick as the lapel of Mrs. Schneider
coat The canvas in the overcoat was much
lighter than the cloth of Mrs. Schneider's coat.
show a discoloration from a bullet than would
the cloth Of Mrs Schneider's coat.
Did You find any discoloration on the canvas
in the overcoat OF the defendant
No, sir; none whatever.
What would have become OF bullet from a
l
hole in the defendants overcoat. the pistol be-
ing fred from short ranger
The bullet would have passed half way
through his body.
Did you find any marks Of powder on the
No. sir.
MRS. scHNKIDER's COAT Examined.
Judge Wilson-Would you expect to find
powder marks on . coat where the pistol wal
held four feet2
could not say that would not.
How far must pistol be held from clothing
to prevent powder marks being shown on the
cloth?
That have not been able TO exactly deter.
mine.
Holding person by the wrist and holding
the pistol fifteen inches from the person, would
you not expect to find q scorch?
would.
Take this coat (Mrs schneider's) and tell me
and the Jury il you see any scorch?
see Examining the coat through glass
| Q scorch about two inches in diameter.
Wouldn't the fame from pistol fred from
this distance make q scorch?
Yes. sir; l see one here.
But wouldn't II be larger than the one you
zee?
think It would.
Then your inference 10 the pistol was held
farther away, isn't tH
Yes, sir.
DR.. schse6sr said he had lately been making