The record-union., 1894-12-08
LAWYER HARRIS LATE STUDENT
William P. HarIow's First Case in
Court.
The General Gets Excited Under Har-
lows Fire, and is Thrice Fined
for Contempt of Court.

but Lawyers Harlow and Hart enlivened
the gloom of the courtroom during the
evening.
District Attorney Ryan made the open
ing statement on behalf Of the prosecu-
ton. He related the circumstances lead
ing to the arrest of Rains, and the subse
quent finding Of evidence to show that
General Harts house was entered by
rear window, and that the blinds on the
window were broken in effecting an
entrance to the house.
Miss Lottie Sahlman. the domestic in
the employ of General Hart, and under
whose bed Rains crawled after having
entered the house; Mrs. a. L. Hart, who
fired two shots from pistol at Rains;
A. l.. Hart, Jr.; eX-police officer George
X. Naghel, and Police Officer d. W.
Higgins testified on behalf of the prose-
cution.
Lawyer Harlow. Rains counsel, in his
opening statement, claimed that Rains
did not enter the house for the purpose of
stealing anything, but that he was in
toXicated and did not know where he was
going.
For the defense, II. S. Warren. Bert
Warren and Frank Riley, residents of
Perkins, testified that Rains had been
drinking at that place.
Jack Hurley testified to having seen
Rains in an intoxicated condition preyi-
GUS to the entry of General HArts house.
a number OF witnesses from Petaluma
testified to Rains previous good character
and reputation.
At > o'clock a recess was taken until 7
O'Clock, Judge Johnson having decided to
hold night session.
In the evening the first witness called
was a. l.. Hart. The first question
asked by Attorney Harlow was: 'Do
you live in Sacramento, Mr.. Hart? ?'
II think l do,'' was the answer.
"You think so. You do not know ?"
was asked.
Il think do" was the answer. 81 have
been in Woodland for several weeks"
You won your case there to-day, and
ought to be in a good numor and answer
the question properly" said Harlow.
The court reminded the attorney that
the Woodland case had nothing to do
with the present one, and cautioned him
to coufine himself to the case.
After several other questions and an
SWers Mr.. Harlow again took exception
TO Hart's answers and the court again
admonished him that whatever feeling
there might be between him and the
witness he must proceed with MS exam
ination in the proper manner.
Harlow diSclaimed any Intention to do
otherwise, and Hart disclaimed any feel
ing on his part.
Il am not talking to you, Mr.. Hart"
said the court. Il am directing Mr.
Harlow with reference to his mode of
examination"
The examination then proceeded. Har-
low read from the testimony Of Hart at
the preliminary examination, asking aC
each pause, us that part of your evil
Gence?'' The answer was generally to
the effect that it was.
At one point Harlow asked the court to
instruct the witness with regard to his
answer, and the court said that the ques-
ton had been answered proper, but that
counsel had misunderstood the answer
Harlow asked the witness if he had
lied to a defense, and that he Harlow
must leave his (Harpsl office If he de-
tended him.
District Attorney Ryan objected to the
question, and Harlow stated that he
wished TO show that Hart had made the
prosecution bitter and malicious one.
Hart interjected several observations.
and the court finally told him that if he
did not cease he would be punished, as
he was there not as a lawyer but as a
witness.
The District Attorney again objected,
and Mr.. Harlow was told TO defer his eX-
plantations and proceed with his ques-
tons. He was persistent in questioning
the witness about the difficulty of climb
ing the post of the porch, till the court
told him to direct his questions 10 some
other point.
- would like to explain, your honor"
said the lawyer. Il"
81 am aware of all you wish," said the
court, ''but have heard enough on that
point"
Then you are not an unwilling wit
ness, Mr.. Hart?' resumed Harlow.
mo, l am not" was the answer.
The question as to whether or not the
wood of the blinds was hard, was the
next bone of contention. The District
Attorney protested, and the court finally
stated that, unless counsel and witness
better observed the amenities of the
court, he should fine them,
Finally Hart, in an undertone, said that
one of Harlow's questions was entirely
contrary TO the rules OF evidence, and the
court directed the Clerk to enter fine of
So against him.
Harlow protested that he would not
ask an improper question knowingly
and asked the witness if his wife made
him certain answer in relation to finger
marks.
Hart said the manner of the question
was an insult to his wife, and made
some more remarks which drew down
on his head another hne. This time it
was $50.
He protested, excitedly, that he did not
wish to be insulted.
Then he was fined, for the third time.
another $50.
The District Attorney interceded for the
witness. pleading his excited condition.
The court stated that he did not wish to
punish Mr.. Hart, but to help and protect
him, if he would allow it, but that the
proper decorum must be observed as
Mr.. Hart we'll knew.
Lawyer Harlow persisted in asking n
question which the court had decided to be
an improper one, and he was told to de-
sst and TO contine himself to proper
questions.
Il will try to do so, your honor. will
not knowingly act improperly, but, as
your honor knows, L have been trained
in General Hart's school," he replied.
Then, addressing the witness, he asked.
''Did you not tell me, Mr.. Hart, that Won
would ask the Judge to give nv client
the highest term III the State Prison that
the law allows?"
"Yes, l did," said Hart, ''and I will
ask him to.
Several witnesses testified to Rains,
previous good character, some Of whom
from Sonoma County, had known hin,
from his boyhood up TO four or five wears
ago. Harlow wished TO prove bv the
prisoners sister and other witnesses that
Rains had, while drunk on previous oc-
casion, gone into her house and crawled
under the bed and gone to sleep.
Every person who gets intoxicated. he
argued. has some peculiar way of actino.
and this seemed to be that of the pris-
oner, and he considered it a relevant fact.
The District Attorney objected, but the
court. being in doubt, gave the prisoner
the benefit. and the desired testimony
was allowed. several witnesses testfying
TO such an occurrence.
The court then adjourned till 10 a. NJ.