The morning call., 1894-08-01

vile, and returned by her unsigned. The
witness had tn draw another. he did not
know what became of the first petition.
Ii might be in his office.
what difference was there in the two
petitions?"
The names of the attorneys were
changed"
You had this will photographed 2''
Yes. in June. ! took it myself to Mr..
Merritl's studio. No one was present but
Mr.. Merritt. had one of the letters pho
tographed."
Now, Judge Williams" said MIR. Del
mas, impressively, There was letter you
spoke of as having passed TO and fro be-
tween yourself and Mrs. Martin. until
What was that"
at was letter addressed My dear
Belle But it was not one of those al
ready introduced in evidence"
After an Intellectual motion tn strike out
the latter part OF the witness testimony
Mr.. johnson, in redirect examination.
asked Judge Williams In what state of
health was Mrs Martin at the time of the
taking of her deposition. The witness re-
piled. "She was very unwell. The doctors
objected TO the taking OF her testimony"
Speaking of the interview with DR..
Stsbbins, the witness said that be stated
therein 10 the reverend gentleman the cir
cumstances of the finding of the second
will by Mrs. Tibbsts. He called TO ask
Dr. Stebbins as to the character of Mrs.
Tibbets. and the dector, as an old neighbor
of hers, said he had known her many
yeare, and that as far as he knew she was
a woman of good reputation. He said
the only thing against her was that she fed
her boarders TOO well" said the witness.
Then came Grove 1. Johnson's dailv
sensation. What reason did Mrs. Martin
nj fnr shown
letter of February q. 1892" he asked.
Judge Williams answered very deliber-
ately. Mistress Martin came to my
Office" he said. '.In course or conversa-
ton she said That there was one letter
which she had not shown me. l was
angry and asked, Why Mrs; Martin
replied that the letter would reflect upon
her and she had promised her mother not
to show IT,"
Amid the profound sensation which this
answer created Grove Johnson shouted,
'That's all"
In recross-examina,ion Judge Williams
stated that from January to June, 1898,
Mrs. John Martins mother resided in New
York. Mrs. Martin did not tell him when
she made this promise to her mother, nor
did she say tnat he had shown her mother
the letter. at least she did not think so.
Anyway the occurrence left no impression
on the mind oil the witness.
Ex-Judgs J. c. Bates of San Francisco
said he knew Henry Martin very we'll.
Martin was director of the True Gold
and Silver Mining Company, of which the
witness was secretary. He often saw
Henry Martins signature. A check-book
of the mining concern being introduced.
the witness identified the signature OF
Henry Martin to several checks.
"Were any assessments collected ?''
'Yes"
WAS one paid February %, 1902"
Delmas objected, but johnson said he
desired to prove that the mining letter of
February %. 1890, which the experts dis
agree upon. was genuine.
This is incompetent testimony" urged
Delmas. Suppose the main facts con
tanned in this letter are genuine, does that
prove this letter to be genuine P''
However, the letter of February 25.
1890, WAS produced.
Then Grove johnson put an important
question, when did Mr.. Martin last see
you?"
HE came to my Office during February.
days before he died. he talked over some
mining affairs and then said he was half
dead. He'd not had his clothes off for a
week. He didn't think his wife would
live from day to day. | suggested his get
ting a trained nurse. Then he said he
either wanted to fix or was fixing up his
affairs"
That's ALL" said johnson.
"NO questions" said Delmas.
Thomas Coster. a acoachman. Of decidedly
French extraction. was the mex. witness.
He SAID he had known Mrs. John Martin
since 1888, and Henry Martin for many
years. He also knew the little boy, as he
and his wife took care of him for twenty
TWO months.