The record-union., 1894-02-02
A DAY OF LONG WATTS.
Arguments Dragging Slowly in the
Gilman" Bee" Case.
Judge Hol1 Finishes His Citation of
Authorities and Review of the
Testimony.

There was not much headway made
yesterday in the case of G. H. Gilman VS..
the proprietors of the Bee for $50, 900 dam
ages for an alleged libel published in their
paper.
Lawyers A. J. Bruner and c. 7. Jones,
the defendants counsel, are also engaged
on opposite sides in the Palmer murder
case, and were engaged in Department
Two until $3.50 P. NJ. arguing for and
against a continuance of the latter case.
Judge Catlin was also required to be IN
the same court as witness for portion
of the time.
1t was nearly o'clock when Judge
Catlin went on the bench and Mr.. Holl
resumed his argument on behalf of the
prosecution.
He began by referring the court to the
decision in the case of Lowe VS.. the Her
GLd Company in the 5th California Re-
ports. and then paid his attention to Mrs
Truitt and her testimony. Quoting from
her story of the alleged criminal assault,
both on her direct and cross-eXamlnatlon
on that point, counsel showed that she
contradicted herself, In the one case she
mentioned a remark she made to Gilman,
and in the other denied it, saying she was
not able to speak. The window OF the
room was open, and it was only thirteen
feet distant to the open window OF the
room where Barry, the hostler, was
rooming.
If, asked Judge Holl, the woman were
assaulted as she alleges, why did she not
make an outcry, or noise OF some Klnd,
that would have brought Barry to her
rescue? The story, he argued, was wholly
improbab BILE. There was nothing to hln-
der her from calling for help. Counsel
said it was also very peculiar for young
woman who had been SO brutally as
saulted to content herself with telling her
assailant to ''gO away and mind his own
business" The reason she gave for not
making an outcry was that she had made
her arrangements for going TO San Fran
cisco the next morning, and II she had
made an outcry it would have disturbed
all her plans.
Judge Holl reviewed that portion of the
woman's deposition in which she de-
scribed the situation of the hallway and
rooms in the Gilman residence, to show
wherein it varied from that Of other wit
nesses, and then reverted to the testimony
given by Pat Barry, the hOstler
The latter had testified in the Police
Court that the first he had heard of the
alleged assault was on the 18th OF August,
one week afterward, when Mrs. Truitt
get some things on credit, but in this case
claimed to have known it all the time.
He also testified that when he saw Gill
man and the woman in the hallway he
was peeping through the doorway of
Cordie's room. the door being ajar about
two or three inches.
Counsel took up this and other portions
of Barry's testimony and showed that
there was an abundance of other testi-
mony showing that Barry could not have
seen anyone in the hallway, as stated by
him, from the doorway of Cordies room
at one end Of the house, looking through
an aperture of only a couple Of inches.
Barry had also flown in the face of the
facts when he swore that certain par
tition and doorway across the hall was
not there.
Counsel argued at some length to show
the utter unreliability Of Barry's testi-
mony regarding what he claimed to have
witnessed on the night Of the llth of
August, 1892. To have seen what he says
he saw Barry must have been able to
look through a solid wall.
This portion Of Barry's testimony, Mr..
Holl said-relative to what he claimed to
have seen in the hallway on the night of
the alleged assault-Was entirely new.
When the Gilman case was tried in the
Police Court Barry was a witness for the
prosecution, but he did not then make
house, or to have seen any portion of the
alleged occurrence.
This circumstance, Mr.. Holl said, was
quite significant, and warranted the be-
lief that he had formed an alliance with
Mrs. Truitt to Injure Gilman. 1t was
significant also when taken into account
with Barry's past experience as witness
in a criminal court. Barry's present
animus was further shown by his vOlun-
tary statements on the witness stand to
the effect that he knew Gilman to be
guilty of what had been charged. If he
knew this, Mr.. Holl asked, why did he
not tell it when such knowledge might
have been useful to the woman at a time
when she was seeking redress for the
wrong which she alleged had been done
her, and when the present plaintiff was
defendant?
1t was after 5 o'clock when Judge Holl
concluded his argument, and the court
then took a recess until 10 O'Clock this
morning.