The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-08-28

you asked for. 1 have them here. in my
pocket"
Yes. yes" hastily interposed Delmas
"but haven't called for them yet"
The witness would not be denied. You
asked for them, MIR. Delmas, and"
The subject was changed. Madam,
did you receive letter from Henry Mar
tin dated from his mine in Novemb Der,
1892"
81 think did"
where is that letter ?"
Il don't know. It's lost, I suppose. /
was In Weaverville at the time, and when
/ received the letter l pnt it on nv hus-
bands desk. l haven't seen it since.
Then followed wearisome reading
from Mrs. Martins half-completed depo-
sition.
This proceeding was often interrupted
by the voluntary remarks of the witness,
such as. there is no sense in this; ~
never testified this; ''there are 5000 oues-
tions in this deposition" and so forth.
Finally Mr.. Delmas read from the deposit
ton to show that the witness had made
no reference to any letter from Martin of
as late date as February q. 1885.
"Oh. / evaded that question:" was the
reply. II did not then wish TO Introduce
the February "a letter. You attorneys
would prevent my testimony. as you lave
everything else"
Strike that out" demanded Delmas.
"ObIect, TOared Johnson.
Before lunch the witness got in another
sally. "You ought to know these things"
she said. "IOr they're as plain as the ose
on your face"
Yes madam" returned Delmas. as he
stroked the affrOnted member, that is
plain enough, certainly. Pm reminded of
that occasionally"
After lunch there was moro reading of
the weary deposition. ordered by Delmas
n, 20. he.
never corrected her first testimony The
witness varied the monOtoHy by picking
up a copy of weekly paper and asking:
mir. Demas, did you pay 500 to have
that article put in? l mean this article
that says l called the jurors boosters? II
so, you are a hoosier yourself"
Mr. Delmas did not even vince. Int
calmly stated that had now no more ques-
tons TO ask save those touching upon the
question asked and postponed the week
before. asking: "Was rot your third
child born March %. 1885, at 21O South
Forty-third street, Philadelphia ." Mr..
Delmas desired now to repeat that cues
ton.
a brief recess was taken to permit of
the return of Attorney l., E. Phillips,
who, as Mrs. John Martins special ad,
wiser, was expected to argue this question.
However. Phillips did not materializp.
and 80 the hearing was resumed without
him. 1t was noticed that Heynemen as
sumed prominent position at this iunc-
ture, and some important revelations were
expected.
Mr. Delmas succeeded in obtaining an
answer to his question sooner than he ex-
pected. The answer was, "No,.si Then
he produced two letters and envelopes. and
after passing them 10 johnson and Lin
forth for perusal, asked Mrs. John If shs
had written them.
Mrs. John said she was no expert. "Are
these some more forgeries, Mr.. Delmas ?''
she asked. On the question being repeated
the witness said she could not swear to her
own handwriting.
Delmas, desiring TO prove the genuineness
of the letters. called Mr.. Reyneman to
the stand All lawyers make Indifferent
witnesses, and HeyDemann was no excep-
ton. However. he testified that at the
end of 1885 or the beginning OF 1886 he re-
ceived the documents in his Office from the
late Andrew Crawford. Since then the
letters have been either in his possession
or in that of Arthur Rodgers, save once.
when he gave them TO ex-senator Cross.
Reyuemann said that he had conyersed
twice with Mrs. John Martin respecting
these letters. Sho called at his office twice.
Ither use for the letters. demanded their
return. Further details of these conyersa-
lions were suppressed on objections from
Grove Johnson. The witness identified
one letter dated October IL. 1885, but was
not so sure OF the other, bearing date of
July u, 1885. Finally Delmas offered the
lettars in evidence. and there was a row.
"How did Mr.. Rodgers know that Won
had these lelters?" asked Grove John son.
"Were you employed in this case after
their discovery. and was your engagement
so conditional?"