The morning call., 1894-08-14

determined that Mrs. John B. Martin
shall answer to theft satisfaction. and
which. on the-contrary. Attorneys Grove
L. johnson and Crittenden Thornton are
equally determined shall not be put to tie
witness, whom they declined to call dur
ing the presentation of their side of the
case. e.
This question, and the admission or re-
lection Of the Andrew Crawford letters,
are poin IS which bave TO. be decided. be-
fore. the jury once more occupies the box
and further testimony is. proceeded with.
The lett6rs a question are still concealed
in.5ome secret hiding place known only to
Judge Coffey, and Will not emerge there
from until it is finally decided whether or
not they are 10 be admitted in evidence.
If Judge Coffey decides that they are rele-
want they: will be read to the jury in open
court, ana world of sensation cast
braadside;oD the bosom of the public.
When court convened yesterday morn
ing it was noticed that, despite Judge COT
fey's warning of Friday afternoon last
there was a lair sprinkling CT the fair sex
IN court Perhaps they were not aware
Of the Suggestions made BY the Judge, but
there they were, and'the sensational points
eontained:.iu- the arguments OF counsel
were brought fully cut In their hearing.
Mrs. Henry Martin K ept away from court,
but Mrs. j ohm Martin sat beside Der coun-
eEthr0ughout the days proceedings.
i. Grove. L. johnson set the ball rolling.
He, made the opening argument In refer
eIce TO 1.-THE admlssibility OF the question
put to:.5Mrs. john Martin concerning the
paternity of the 'three-year-od Droponent
of THE. second will. The Sacramento law
gers main ground of:obJection to the ques-
lion was ON thA score that ii was not re-
buttal. Secondly, be claimed that the
witness was noteompetent TO prove or dis
prove: the paternity Of her own child.
1--WE. Intraduced mo evidence as to the
paternity of john 3. Martin .Jr ip our
presentation of our case. Oar evidence on
that SCORE was merely introduced to show
the impTobabillty of Henry Martin going
so far as 10 speak concerning his sister-in-
law in tne NJ anIler in which the other side
would have. the jury believe he did.
Then, agaB, the ontestants of this
second will introduced no evidence against
the legitimacy of this young child, except
by innuepdo. Their evidence showed
only. Oh their part. the imprObability of
Henry Martin having. made this second
will while in the frame Of mind they a.
tribute to him."
Grove Johnson went on to say that it
was not permitted counsel TO contradict
their own witness except by pleading sur
prise. And the counsel on he other side
IN this case had failed to cali Mrs. John
Martin as a witness in their case in chief.
And as to the question now in dispute,
Mir. Delmas had repeatedly stated that the
legitimacy of the child was not in dispute
and did not foIm part Of his case.
Ii angered the speaker very much to
know that synopsis Of the contents of
the much talked of Andrew Crawford let
lers had been uolisned IN t1e newspa-
pers. Sternly fixing Clerk Nicely Murphy
with a glance. Grove johnson said :
"Through the misconduct of some one,
and I know that am looking at him now.
some of the contents of these letters have
been given to the public.
Murphy grew pale. and looked for ID o.
ment as though he were intending to go
for the Sacramento lawyer. Then lie
changed his mind, and turning IN bis
chair gazed up at Judge Cotfey, as t0ough
appealing for protection from Insult. But
the Judge failed 10 come to the rescue.
being on jocular thoughts intent
haven't even read the papers yet MI.
Johnson" he said.
oh, it is not your Honor I'm looking
AT; retorted the pugnacious johnson.
Nicely Murphy sat still for moment,
ana then rose from his seat and abruptly
left the courtroom.
johnson proceeded with his argument,
urging tnat the State had laid down law
10 the eject that certain things might not
Ne Maue Inc. subject OF judicial inquiry.
No mater how easily to be proven, the
Introduction OF such letters would tend TO
the destruction of the States welfare.
Motives Of, Oh legislators in voting on certain
propositions might not under any circum-
stances be inquired into. So in fbis case.
Under the Civil Code the confidential COM
muDicatlons passing between husband and
wife could not be forced from ether on
the witness-stand, and the same rule ap-
piled to the question ioI, now at issue.
1.-THE law has decided this very question
now IN court sala Johnson, and Straight
way begun to tell a. poetic story OF how
during the past disastrous strike. a hand
. full of 200 regular soldiers had put 10 fijgpt
gigantic mobs of rioters The law was re-.
sponsble for this. .''Behind the back of
every blue-coated soldier there" said the
counsel. ''lay the power and The maiAstv If
the law"
In conclusion Grove johnson urged tina.