The morning call., 1893-09-12
THE MATTHEW WEB
Being Slowly but Surely
Woven by the Police.
A BARKEEPER's TESTIMONY.
How Matheny and TouhilI Worked
With a OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES by
a Halter and a Tailor.

OAKLAND.-When the case of Louis
Matheny opened yesterday morning be-
fore Judge Henshaw there were fewer
spectators on hand than on former occa-
sions, but as the time passed the court
room became crowded and by the time of
the noon adjournment the courtroom was
full
The first witness to take the stand was
James A. Stark, young man who had
been in the railroad employ. and was
frequenter of the Elysium saloon on Geary
and Larkin streets. Stark testified that he
had frequently seen Touhill and the de-
PENDANT in the saloon together and had
seen them with the little hand-satchel. one
similar to that found on the safe in
kuhlne's saloon on Seventh street, the
morning of the murder. and which con-
tanned burglars tools. The witness stated
that the barkeeper, Stocker, had taken the
satchel from behind the bar where TouLill
had left it, and had the witness feel It's
weight. 1t was very heavy. as though it
contained some weighty articles. Inc
witness also told how TOuhill, with
Matheny sitting near, had measured the
safe in the Elyslum saloon and had taken
the combination out and worked with 1t.
Stark also related that the barkeeper
had on an occasion taken some things out
OIL the SAFE put Dy IOuUill duu WulCu
proved TO be little wire hooks and minute
steel saws, such as those in evidence and
which were found in the satchel the rob-
bers left in Kuhlne's saloon.
This witness testified very clearly, and
his testimony was but little shaken on
crOss-examnaton by Carroll Cook.
a halter named Meyer was placed on
the stand and testified that the hat left in
the saloon by the fleeing burglar was the
same size as that worn by Matheny when
arrested-7h.
The testimony of this witness closed the
morning hour. and after lunch the bar
keeper at the Elysium, Philip Stocker. was
put on the stand.
His testimony was TO the same effect as
that of Stark, and was cOrrOboratlve CT
that witness evidence. In his cross &
examination he stated that he never knew
that Phil Knell. the baseball pitcher, had
purchased the saloon. He said In answer
to questions that the place was owned by
a man named Parsons, and that he had
| given Touhill permission 10 have what he
wanted there-the liberty of the house, liz
deed. He stated that he did not like ToG-
| hill, presumably because he had too many
privileges about the place. He said he
and Touhill did not get along we'll To-
gether. He said he had often seen the de-
iendant and Touhill in the saloon
| together. and had seen them go off to-
gether at late hours, always with the little
| satchel and its weighty contents
! The witness described how en- one occa-
sion after TouhiIl had been in the saloon
the latter put something IN the safe and
went out. After he was gone Stoeker
opened the safe and took out the package
and showed the same to Stark. 1t proved
to be Abe package of little steel saws and
wire ,feks already mentioned.
| Mr.. Cook asked the witness ii he did
| not know that Touhill had right TO go
| to the safe. The witness said he did, but
| stated that he was in charge OF the saloon.
aad he thought that he. too, had So
rights the matter. -s-
but you had never been given permis-
SION" said Mr.. Cook.
You knew that Touhill had the RICH ?"
Eyes"
Then why did you open that safe"
! The witness again fell BACK on his privi-
les by reason of being in charge.
After Siocker. Richard Finking, San
| Francisco tailor. testified that he had
made suit of clothes for man named
| Louis Matheny in July, 1892. He had his
| book with him and read off the order as it
| appeared. He identified the sCit of clothes
| in evidence as the suit he made. This
was the suit which was wornSby the burg
lar on the night of the robbery, ana
! which was found in Matheny's room the
next day wet and covered with mud. The
! tailor also had hiS tape measure with him,
and for the benefit of Judge and jury COM
| pared the present measurement of the
clothes with the figures in the original
order in his book, and there was but little
| difference. The witness said that the dis
| crepancies could be accounted for by
shrinkage or altering after the clothes
were finished. But he said that very few
suits of clothes made would conform
| exactly to the original figures.
The witness was not crosS-eXamined,
the hour for adjournment having arrived,
when the case went over till this morning
at 10 o'clock