The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-08-29
LETTERS ALLOWED
Judge Coffey Holds Them
Competent.
ABOUT THIS THIRD CHILD
Long Legal Arguments, in Which
johnson Is Worsted.
MRS. JOHN CAUSES MORE DELAY
Does Not Put in an Appearance
but Sends Word at a Late Hour
That She Is Sick.
MRS. JOHN CAUSES MORE DELAY

reaching conclusion. 1t is a case Of de-
lays, and has been so from the commence
ment, and remarkably so for a case that
consumed so much time in its prepare
tion.
Mrs. John Martin has not been back
ward In interfering with the progress of
= the trial This lady does pretty much as
she pleases. as her appearance in court for
the purpose of giving testimony is mat
ter which her own attorneys cannot die
tate. Not only is her demeanoT upnn the
wltness-stand of an order calculated to
= try the patience of counsel. but at other
times she sends brief messages to the
effect that she is sick and cannot be pres
ent.
Such was the case yesterday. Mrs. John
did not put in an appearance during the
morning session of the court, and when
the luncheon interval had passed by and
her presencein court was indispensable to
the progress of the trial her attorneys
were fam to confess that they knew not
where their eccentr witness was A
message had been dispatched up to her
house. and it was vaguely rumored that
an answer had been returned to the effect
that Mrs. John was indisposed. So a good
two hours of the days session were lost
and the case nad perfOTce to be continued
@: 1t is ba rely possible that Mrs John
Martin may be carrying out her threat of
two weeks ago. 1t was at the time when
=. it was first sought to introduce the An
drew Crawford letters in evidence. At
the termination of half a days lengthy
argument anent the relevancy of these
eplStles, no conclusion having as yet been
reached, Mrs. John was heard to say that
should the Crawford letters be admitted
IN evidence no mortal power should induce
her TO enter that courtroom again.
For the time being those letters were
ruled out, and all was peace. Judge CUffey
decided that no proper foundation had
been laid for their Introduction. But it is
different now, and two letters out of the
bundle were yesterday decided by the
court to be relevant and material to the
Issue. These are the letters which are
supposed TO relate to the birth of third
child TO Mrs. John Martin on March %,
1885, at 210 South FOrty-third street, Phila-
delphia. This was decided Yesterday
morning, and NAV account for Mrs. John
Martins protracted absence. Be that as
it may, the fact is that she did not show
UP the whole day.
Another episode of the day was the at
tempted interjectiOn of Attorney l.. Z.
Phillips into the case as special attorney
for Mrs. John Martin. In this capacity
he sought to be associated with Grove L.
johnson and Walter LinfOrth, but on the
objection of mir. DeImas the court decided
that If Phillips appeared only as counsel
for Che guardian of the prOpoDent and not
for khe proponent himself he could take
nc active part in the case, neither In exam
lnRilon nor s-examiDation of witnesses,
nor in addressing the Judge or jury. So
Mr.. Phillips must needs De a silent part
ner in the Martini ohnson firm.
Mr.. Heynemann was another lawyer
who condescended to furnish little
amusement during the morning session by
taking the WitueSs-stand for the purpose
of identifying one of the Crawford letters
and perSiStently declining to answer the
questions asked of MIN. He was made
the butt of q few shafts of sarcasm lev
eled by the irrepressible Grove johnson.
With these exceptions everything passed
of in an orderly manner, and the heat OF
the previous day having abated somewhat
the courtroom was decidedly more bear
able.
Grove johnson opened the proceedings
with a long and elaborate argument
against the introduction of the two Craw-
ford letters before referred to, bearing
dates July u and October Il. 1885, in evil
denee. He started off with the oft-re-
Deated argument: 1.-The issue in this case
is as to whether or not this so-called sec
ond will was written and signed by
Henry Martin. Consequently. everything
else introduced Is either secondary or col
lateral"
The counsel went on to say that if he
chose 20 take the ground held by the op-
posing counsel. TO the effect that because
evidence mad been introduced by the pro-
ponents as to the maternity of this child
that on that account the contestants had
a perfect right to reply to that evidence:
then, in such q case, he would fall back
upon weII-known Supreme Court de-
cision, which had held that such evidence
was unnecessary, If not improper, and
that any answer made thereto would be
not rebuttal and entirely Irrelevant.
nh
"whether or not this woman had a hun
dred children, nor whether or not thew
were born IN wedlOck. Such testimony as
is sought to be introduced by means of
these letters is not admissible for the pur-
pose of impeachng this witness. The
maternity of child born in 1891 IS neither
proved nor disproved by evid euce of the
birth of child in 1885, six years BEFORE"
In conclusion johnson produced many
large lawbooks and quoted many eminent
but dry authorities in support OF his rea-
sons for thinking that such letters and
SUCH evidence should not be allowed to
go in.
Mr.. Delinas lolled back in his chair in
the most comfortable attitude, the most
superior smile upon his face, and care
lessly toying with his glasses the while
Johnson pounded the table aud exp0unded
law. When that was over Mr.. Delmas
rose for the purpose of crushing Mr.. john
son.
Inc transcript OIL the reporter uOteS
taken day or two previously was used by
Mr. Delmas to show that Mrs. John Mar
tin had distinctly stated that she had only
three children born alive to her. Two
were accounted for in the persons of Sadie
and Henry Hoffman. and the counsel was
prepared to show that third child was
born in 1885. II that could be shown, who
was this child produced in court as John
b. Martin Jr?
We had a special object" said Mr. Del
mas, IN Introducing the testimony we
old. we stated from the first that it was
not our Intention 10 dispute the maternity
OF TINS child unless we were forced SO
TO do.
I'VE merely wished to show the state of
mind of Henry Martin and his disbelief
In what. Tor the purposes of this case we
were willing 10 accept as an established
fact We referred to this deusion of his,
if delusion it was, for the purpose of
showing how extremely improbable il was
that Henry Martin could have made such
a will ia such state OF mind.
but we have been challenged. We
have been confronted with evidence nui
il by the other side and we desire TO re-
flute it. We now say that this child. this
prepayment of so-caIled second win, is
neither the child of John Martin nor OF
his wife, Mrs. Isabella Martin" Counsel
then quoted afresh from Grove Johnson's
opening statement to the Jury in which