The herald., 1894-07-06
jscted on the grounds that the witness

jscted on the grounds that the witness
had no means Of knowing the genuine
ness of the telegram.
G. Holterhoff. paymsster of the
Southern California Railway company,
was called to the stand by the prosecu-
tion to identify Heartt's signature, but
upon objection of the defense. Judge
Ross refused to hear any of the tele-
grams read, and they were dispensed
with. Judge Ross said he could not see
that they had any material bearing on
the case.
Engineer H. NJ. Gillis, being called to
the stand, was questioned closely as
to whether he had received any dir-
patches from Heartt from June 30th to
July 4th. He had not received any
kilograms. OF which the prosecution
showed decided surprise, as it was
intended to Hhow some very material
evidence against the defendants inten-
tion in not moving the train upon which
the United States mail was to be trans.
mitted.
At the conclusion of the testimony
given by Gillis, Attorney Gall announced
that the government would rest. He
then proceeded to address the court.
briefly, upon the cause which led up to
tie issue of the writ OF injunction by
the court. His address was followed by
w. j. Hunsaker, assistant government
attorney and also attorney for the South
ern California Railway company. Hun
saker reviewed the evidence, saying
that the inference was that Hesrtt man.
aged to delay the moving of the tain as
long as possible, and then resigned,
causing an interference with the United
States mails. Through such interier-
encc, however," said Mr.. Hunsaker,
Mr.. Heartt had no intention of violat-
ing an order OF the court, as he evident
ly resigned from the company with no
such idea in mind"
G. @. Stephens opened the argument
for the defense by referring to Hunsa-
ker's statement that Heartt, up to few
minutes before the time for the train to
start, was at perfect liberty to resign
from the service of the company. Then,
he said, if Heartt had right-as he un-
questionably did-to resign his position
as conductor of the company, wherein
did he commit any contempt of court or
violate any writ of injunction? Ste
phens presented numerous authorities to
show his position regarding the validity
of the issuance of the writ of injunction,
Ciosius Wy rhyihs CHab ~ ouo
railway company had the right
to discharge Heartt up to the
time the train was ready to start, Heartt
certainly had the right to resign from
the service of the men who employed
him and who had the unquestionable
right to discharge him ct any time the
company saw fit. 1t was the opinion OF
mir. Stephens that the railway company
took this means to make an example OF
the chief officer OF the local lodge OF the
American Hallway union.
Byron Waters OF San Bernardino, in
making additional argument in behalf
of the respondent. made plea that the
Injunction of the court be upheld, but it
WAS hoped that it would not be used to
place Heartt and his friends in prison.
Heartt's intention was far from violat-
ing an order of the court. He made a
fine address and was complimated by all
who heard it.
Attorney Call arose to answer the very
able argument of Mr.. Waters, saying
that the refusal of Heartt to take out the
train was cunningly devised subterfuge
OF the strikers to prevent the moving Of
the train and, consequently. the mails.
Attorney Stephens asked Mr.. Call to
show any part OF the Injunction wherein
an employee was refused the rlght TO re-
sign. and was answered in general way
by saying that IL had already been
shown in numerous instances by the
spirit aud the intent Of the injunction.
The most OF the day had been taken
up in the case and Judge Ross imme-
diately after the close Of the argument,
announced that he would take the mat.
ter under advisement. Before he retired
he expressed his very high appreciation
OF the spirit in which the attorneys on
both sides had conducted the case
throughout.
1t lie thought Judge Ross will render a
decision today.
THE DEPUTY MARsHALs.