The morning call., 1894-09-14


Now, In this case, MIR. johnson thought
the tactics pursued by the other side were
those of the cuttefish, those of the poll
liclan. BY their means the minds of the
jury had been willfully diverted from the
main issue to be presented, by the intro
duction of eXtraneous testimony regarding
a person who was really not a party to the
action. This was the striking feature Of
the cuttletish policy adopted by the other
side.
Look at the lawyers arraved on the
other side" cried Johnson. Then he al
luded TO Mr.. Robinson, the hard orkiDg
assistant of Mr.. Rodgers, as a perfect en-
cyclopeda of exhibits and things; of Mr..
Heynemann as the gentleman with the
everlasting smile and the intrusive pres
ence: Mr.. Craig as the great and warlike
Mr.. Rodgers as the subtle, learned. bril-
liant; lastly, Mr.. Delmas, with his cold
cy0ical smile, his sneer and his sharp, cut
| ting questions.
"All of these men," cried johnson,
have been at work since July 9. Like
| the winning team in the tug-ol-war they
are pulling into this case all sorts of ex-
| traneous matters. chiefly directed against
this woman, in order that the jury may
| forget who are the parties concerned and
what issues are submitted to them for
their consideration.
'The contestants in this case are known
to you. On the one side is a wealthy
widow, worth 100000 at least, as she
swore TO you on the stand; wealthy
gentleman, twice Supervisor and twice
Mayor OF this city. tower in wealth. a
tower in politics, tower in business, a
tower in Office. On the other side is lit
tie baby bOy-no friends. no money, no
power, no business, no office-nothing in
this case save the justice of his cause and
| he Integrity of the twelve men i see be-
fore me. No one else. The boy alone is
! the party. 1t is The boy, not the mother,
J OH1Ppt
| gentlemen"
Then, turning to juror, johnson said ::
Rarely, Mr.. DempSter. has jury had so
plain a case presented to him as is pre-
sentsd to you apd your colleagues in this
case. But the tactics pursued by the other
side have been resortsd to in an endeavor
| 10 cOnfound your mind and lead you away
| from the real issue.
"All talk about tine mother inheriting
! the property from the boy is unfounded
and unnecessary. All this talk, introduced
| by Mr.. Rodgers, was done 10 mySIify, TO
change the parties and to change the
/ issue. The only issue is did Henry Mar
/ tin write the second wili?"
! The counsel spoke of the delays caused
| by the other sice. and then went on to
| talk OF how his opponents had taken ad-
| vantage OF the eecentrlcltieS of witness
1 III this case, to make attacks upon her.
! This was not right aoy more Than was the
| attemptOf the other side to make money a
! power in this cast when the time ever
| comes, as come it may, when rich men can
| win lawsuits against Door men, by tring
! them out and forcing them to the wal
then the miseries of Judges and courts will
! be at an end, and we shall go about armed
! with the revolver and bOWleknife, as of
old, prepared TO protect our own honor.
johnson was fam TO confess that he
| feared Delmas' closing speech. He
! thought his side had not been fairly
treated throughout and he had something
! to say about deputy county clerks. 1t was
a lity that John NJ rtin's adherents had
no money to order transcripts of testimony
and copies of exhibits as the other side
! had done.
Then addressing another Juror: "Is il
not curious, Dir. RulOfson, that lawyers
were called as witnesses in this case? You
| heard Mr. Rodgers talk of professional al
confidence, did you not? Aye, my friend
| Rodgers. In any other case than this. But
| ia this case. with an unfairress only
| known in autOcratIc Russia, Judge George
| E. Williams, Carroll Cook and w. II. L.
! Barnes were all called by the other side.
Is this unusual? Why was 1t done? 1t
was done for effect. And was that giving
| Us a fair trial?'
Johnson proceeded TO pull the speech of
Arthur Rodgers to pieces. "He forgot six
OF our Witnesses" he claimed, "and he
never told YOU why Mrs. John Martin was
called, Dye think that was accidental? I?
If so you're more eredulous men than |
am. There was purpose. gentlemen. ia
| all tnat."
The speaker complimented the court
upon its impartial conduct of the case, and
then proceeded 10 drive more nails into the
colin Of the testimony of Mrs. John Mar
1n. 1t was immaterial, he claimed,
whether she was faithful or iaithless TO
her husband, good or e bad woman, as
| imm eteTlal to the case as was the transit
/ Wanna IL
Baby John Martin. He may be the honest
| scion of honest parents or the siness.child
| of sin, 1t makes no difference. Nor aid il
matter whether Henry Martin hated or
! loved his slster-in-law. Did he or did he
| not write the second will. Then johnson
changed the subject awhile.
Before entering uDon the testimony
| 1t is proper to mention few basic prin-
ciples of law. The Judge viii duly in-
struct you upon this point The con-
testants must prove their case, or else you
must decide in our favor. A man has
right to leave his property to whom he
rleases. In vulgar language, it's nobody's
| business what he does with his money.
Henry Martin had also a legal right to
deposit his will where be pleased. He
could give 1T to whom he pleased, IAN ex-
| Mayor or bOarding-house keeper" The
wrapper of such Il document made DO
difference, any more than sits contents"
Again, the paternity Of John B. Mar
tin could not be disputed in this case
| This point had been decided by Judge
Coffey. Again the case must be decided
| solely on the evidence introduced at the
trial. Evidence ruled out by the court
| must not be speculated upon by any juor
Nor must any publication concerning the
trial be In any way regarded. The coun-
sci seemed extremely anxious to impress
each juror with the value of the oath he
had taken in this respect. In fact, john
son congratulated the jury upon their
good fortune In not having been placed
under the care of the Sheriff AZ the begin
ming Of the trial and SO kept III close con-
finement to The end.
Ii did not matter whether John Martin
other side might dig up witnesses to swear
that the little boy was neither the child of
John Marin nor of Isabelle j. Martin, as
that was not the issue here. The Will
might be genuine and the child not. The
question at present was one solely regard
ing the will, and the question of the
child's Legitimacy was one to be decided
hereafter.
''If it can be shown that by the testi-
mOny alone introduced by the other side
they are not entitled to verdict. then.
gentlemen, your duty is plain. This l
hope to show you, in manner already sug-
gested by The argument OF Mr. LinfOrth -
The testimony, claimed johnson, intro
duced by the other side to prove their case
was based on two props; ihe first, expert
testimony; the second, mudthrowIng at a
woman. That's all their case" he sal 4.
Now take the one prop, the throwing of