The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-12-04
WRANGLE AS TO TIME.
Buckingham's Testimony Not
Very Satisfactory.
HATCh's MOTHER ON THE STAND
Did the Defendant Commit Perjury
When lie Secured a Mar
riage License?


was resumed al 1 o'clock this afterDoo
For time the proceedings were very dull.
but during the closing hours there were
lively tits between the attorneys, and
General Hart creating something of a
sensation by the pointed and vigorous
manner in which he questioned one of his
own witnesses with whose answers be
was not satisfied.
Peter McGregor and j. n. Gill we're the
first witnesses, but their testimony only
concerned the reputation of the defendant
for peace and quiet, which they said was
good. j. w. Thompson was recalled and
iden tilted Krisner and Powers as men he
had seen 10 Washington on the 11th of
July.
F. j. Powers, the next witness, saw
Hatch in Washington about fifteen min
utes past u o'clock. Cooks line Of cross
questioning indicated that he was endeav-
orIng to show that the witness had
frequently been in trouble. General Hart
saw the point, and the court sustained his
objection. The witness stuck TO his story
closely.
F. II. Jeffries testified that he saw Hatch
near the coffee-house three or four min
utes after II, but he did not agree with
Lieutenant Perkins for the prosecution or
Mr.. Diliman for the defense concerning
the picket line and tho crowd with Ha CHI.
R. Il. Buckingham was called and the
tilt between him and General Hart fur
nished one of the sensations of the dav.
Witness testified that he saw Hatch on
PatterSon's corner from half H. three
quarters of an hour before the train went
out. He was talking witt Worden. Gen
eral Hart did not seem to be satisfied with
the answers made by the witness and he
asked with considerable asperity: Cant
you give me a clearer idea of the time
you saw Mr., Hatch when you went p"
THAT is as clear an idea as can give"
"Do you remem Der of talking with me- on
the train and telling me that yen saw him
across the street short time before You
went home; that if the people were willing
to tell the truth l could prove it by hun
dred witnesses he was there a short time
before the train went outs"
The court sustained an objection by Mr.
Cook, and the general endeavored to get
the information by varying the form OF the
questions.
you and l conversed about the time
when you saw the defendant Hatch over
there in Washington. Did you at that
time say that it was about twenty minutes
before 1872"
'No, siT."
"What time did you tell me?"
about half or three-quarters of an
hour, not to exceed three-Quarters, before
the train went out"
care you absolutely certain that You did
not ell me it was about twenty minutes
of 1872"
Yes, sir"
didn't you tell me that yesterday ?"
asked General Hart with much warmth.
No. sir; never told you or any other
man So" replied the witness with equal
emphasis. The witness added: "If the
court will allow me TO explain can tell
you why | wasn't here on the Worden
case"
The court would not allow It,
"YOu have make that remark as an IN
friendly remark to the defendant?" Quer-
led Hart.
"No, sir; 1 am friend of the defend
ant" was the reply.
The mother of Hatch was the next
witness. She testified to the movements
of her son on the day of the wreck. She
also testified that she had been married
twenty-one years and that her son was not
of age. When Mr.. Cook took the witness
he raised row when he asked, "Your
son doesn't know his own age, does he p"
Eyes, sir, he does. He ought to be bright
enough for that"
did you sign any paper giving your
consent to his marriage?"
mo, SIR"
''If he in getting his license swore he
was 81 years and over, was that an incor-
rect statement on his part?"
Hart was on his feet in an instant. and
not only objected but took exception to
all such questions by the prosecution
Cook proposed to show that the defendant
in procuring his license had sworn that he
was 81 years of age, and be thought it per-
fectly competent to inquire which is cor
rect. the defendant or his mother.
The court ruled that the defendant no.
having te stified the certificate could not be
offered in evidence. The case will not
be concluded tomorrow.
ONLY by answering every requirement