The record-union., 1894-02-07

says O1lulan lHGn lOlQ ner he WOuIu NAV .
nothing more to do with her. She could
endure criminal assault; she could even
stand it TO have her jaw dislocated; she
could put UP with the vilest of treatment,
but it was not until Gilman told her he
would have nothing more to do with her
that she got mad and decided TO leave the
house. Hell hath no fury like a woman
scorned." Who would convict on such
testimony a man of standing and respect
ability in the community like Mr.. Gil
man?
Mr.. Johnson then adverted to the COM
pact made between Mrs. Truitt ana Pat
Barry to 'frighten'' Gilman. This was
followed up by the woman's visit TO Gil
mans store. She according to her testi-
mony) was outraged on the llth OF Au-
gust, again insulted on the 18th, and on
the same day her friend Madison was
insulted by Gilman, and yet on the fol-
lowing day she goes to the latter'S store,
as she says, to buy some lace. She could
have gone to any other store.
Barry says she told him she was going
there for some lace, and expected TO get
it on credit. He told her she could not
get anything on credit. This is probably
the truth, for she did ask for credit and
was refused. Mr.. Johnson claimed that,
taken In connection with what she had
said about frightening Gilman, it showed
that she went to the store for purely
Matchmaking purposes-to get all she
could on credit and then refuse to pay the
bill. The whole transaction shows her to
be woman unworthy of credence.
Continuing his argument at the alter
noon session, Mr.. Johnson resumed his
analyzation of Mrs. TRUTHS testimony.
She had, he said, repeatedly contradlcted
herself in the several stories she told dli-
terent parties as TO her purpose i'll visit
ing Gilman's store. These contradictions
bore out the theory that she must have
gone there for the purpose of obtaining
goods or money from Gilman, and that
she did so at the suggestion OF other per-
sons. She did not begin proceedings
against Gilman because her feelings or
honor had suffered, but because she
wanted to put stop to his insults land
because she had been advised TO do So"
Mr.. johnson said that if the buttons
she had referred to as having been torn
from her dress remained in the hallway
for nine days, the fact bore out Gilman's
testimony that she had been shittless and
neglected her work. If she had swept
the house during those nine days she
would have found those buttons. From
Barrv'S testimony the Inference is that
she placed the buttons III the hallway at
the time she pretended to pick them up
nine days after she says they were torn
from her dress. And she did this only at
the suggestion of another woman. Hers
was manufactured testimony on this
point. and, as usual, this kind of testi-
mony is dangerous. No jury would con-
slider her contradictory testimony for a
moment. All through it is of such a
character as, IN the language of the Su-
preme Court, to warrant the court III
warming jury against rendering a YER
dict thereon.
In regard to the horse and cart episode.
counsel said that if Gilman were guilty
he would have been only too desirous of
granting her request to allow her to use
them. If Gilman were guilty would he
have left the woman unmolested for a
whole week? If guilty would he have
cursed her in the presence OF Madison
and Barry? He would have been more
careful for fear she would retaliate by eX-
posing him to his family, to Madison and
others. Is it reasonable TO suppose that
Gilman would have done this thing in
the presence of her friend Madison, and
within the hearing OF the neighborS? !?
Would he have refused her credit at his
store, or money, # he had been guilty !?
Certainly not-he would have been only
too glad to have thus favored her.
After Pat Barry told Gilman what the
woman threatened to do, would he have
dared to further eXaSperate her by threat
ening to throw her trunk into the street
if she did not take it away? No jury on
earth would believe her-no jury would
convict Gilman on such incoherent and
improbable testimony-not even If that
jury were composed of proprietors of the
Bee.
And yet this woman's story is made
the basis of libelouS publication in that
paper. The courts have ALWAYS held that
no conviction should be allowed on un-
supported testimony of this character,
which is so easy to make and so difficult
to disprove, and courts have been strict
in laying down instructions to juries in
this class of cases.
Mr.. johnson referred to the fact that
Judge Van Fleet had quashed the pro-
ceedings against Gilman on the testimony
of Mrs. Truitt alone. He then paid an
eloquent tribute to virtue, and contrasted
with the character of pure and innocent
woman that Of the impure blackmailer,
who traded on the reputation of reput-
able citizens.
The defense had claimed that Mrs.
Truitt had been corroborated in her
testimony by that of Pat Barry. Who is
Barry? A selt-confessed and convicted
perjurer.
If they rest upon Barry's testimony,
then the plaintiff is entitled to a judg
ment III his favor.
Mr.. Johnson continued to comment ON
Barry's testimony, declaring that if it
were worthy of any credence at all it
only went to show that Gilman was inno-
cent OF anything like rape, the crime
charged by Mrs. Truitt. His is the only
testimony the defense depends upon out
side of that OF Mrs. Truitt, and he de-
clares that he saw no force used by the
plaintiff. If his testimony means any
thing, it is that there was illicit inter-
course between Gilman and the woman,
nothing worse.
Counsel for the defense based their ar
guments on the assumption that the
plaintiff used force in the alleged assault,
and they rested their case on that assump-
ton; yet there is no testimony except the
inconsistent statement of Mrs. Truitt that
force was used.
Barry had not only had experience as a
witness in criminal cases, but had been a
defendant himself in criminal action.
lie is not an Ignorant inexperienced per-
son. He had been traced. in looking up
his origin, to the Bee Office, to the office
OF Charles Il. Jones and that of Alvin j.
Bruner Apparently he had been discov-
cred by the celebrated boy detective. He
is a typical Irish informer. Where he
had concocted the perjured testimony
he had given, counsel could not say. but
InaC lnucn OF IL was manufactured tnere
could be no doubt
Mrs. Gilman, her mother Mrs. Baird),
Judge Post and other witnesses had di-
rectly contradicted Barry's testimony.
Do they lie, or does Barry? He was once
convicted of perjury, and having once
escaped punishment would he not like
another Michael Feeny, feel confident
that, having defeated American justice
once, he could do it again?
When Mrs. Baird and Mrs. Gilman re-
turned from the springs Barry told them
that the woman Mrs. Truitt) was a bad
woman and a blackmailer, and that they
must pay no attention to what she might
do or say against Mr.. Gilman On testi-
mony less fiagrantly untruthful than that
of Barry, Sir John Thomas More was
convicted Of perjury in the olden time