The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-08-15

Arthur Rodgers at this point ran dry o.
questions, so be asked for the Crawford
letters, from which to gain inspiration
Judge Coffey had them 10 his cham Der:
under double lock and key, but said he
would fetch them. He left the courtroom
Stenographer Sumner. What passed
| between them is not known, but
Sumner was the first to return,
and on entering the courtroom was
mistaken for the Judge. and received with
judicial hon0rs. Finally Judge Coffev en-
tered with the required papers, and Radg-
ers spread them before him.
Were the races you attended prior TO
May the same which you attended on
that day?" be asked of Mrs. Martin.
II don't remember" was the calm reply.
well, you went to more than one place.
did you not?"
II don't remember. / think I was al
Sheepshesd, and don't remember"
Then you did go to Sheepshead?'
eyes. | attended the Brooklyn bandi-
CAP there on MAY 10, 1891"
'And before thatP
Il don't remember"
did you drive to Sheepshead on May
15?"
81 did,"
AFTER May 4. 1891, when did you next
attend the rares?"
uOn remember. L lUlUK IL was NAV
10. at Sheepshead."
after that date when did you next 90 Pr
mot for some time"
''What did you go for?"
Diversion"
Were you not betting?"
''No, sir"
Had you not conceived a safe system
for betting?"
mo, sir"
To-
Rodgers changed his tactics. He reopeped
his examination of Mrs. John Martin by
asking her:
who was present at the birth of your
boy?"
Mrs. Larkin, my nurse, DR.. Van Val
zah, my physician, and Mrs Plows-Day."
Sand you say the birth took place
when?"
Between and o'clock on the evening
of May 5. 1891"
Then Rodgers stood up.
Mrs. Martini" he asked, was not your
deposition partly taken in February last p"
Grove l.. johnson proceeded to make a
satisfactory amount OF trouble about this
question. He said that this line of testi-
mony was wholly Objectionable. and
quoted authorities in support of his point
On the other hand, Mr.. Delmas pro-
duced the pleadiDgs in the case to show
titak Vic OIiSIu VI tuio CHllu do DelnD the
offspring OF John B. Martin or Isabella j..
Martin. or either of them, was wholly de-
MED. To this end he proposed to prove
that the dispositions of the New York wit
Desses were entirely false. Part of this
showing lay in the fact that in February
last, when her deposition was taken. Mrs.
John Martin said that the child was born
not between and O'Clock in the evening.
but between and II o'clock in the morn
ing
mo, SIR" hastily interrupted Mrs. Mar
tin, her cheeks and eyes afiame. Her
counsel interfered and then Mrs, John
asked permission of the court to confer
with Mr.. johnson. Permission being
granted. against the vigorous objection of
Mr.. Delmas, the witness stepped down,
johnson explained for the benefit of the
opposing counsel that all he wished to
know was where there was a copy of the
deposition, and Mrs. Martin had told him.
Mrs. John Martin took a back seat
while the attorneys waged wordy war
fare over the relevancy of this question
In answer TO Mr. Delmas Grove johnson
read from the pleadlDgs to show that the
origin of the child John B. Martin was
not disputed by the other side. As for the
separate answer filed by x-Mayor Pond.
the Sacramento lawyer claimed that
counted as nothing; for, Mr.. Pond not be-
ing executor, but administrator with the
Will annexed, he had no legal standing in
the case.
Delmas explained that johnson always
kept his heavy guns for the eEd of his ar.
gument, thus shutting off his reply. This