The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-09-26

not And, gentlemen, In the full conf
dence that you VIII be. we now with un-
ia ling heart submit this cause to your
consideration
At 3 o'clock Judge Coffey started to in
struct the jury. His instructions were
neither lengthy nor elaborate. They
merely contained plain statements of law
as laid down by the books. with a careful
avoidance of anv extIaneouS matter that
might lead the jury away from the direct
points at issue.
Briefly reviewed, the Judges instruc.
tions were: The parties 10 this proceed
ing are f. B. Pond and Mrs. Henry
Martin, widow of Henry Marin. The
only question for you to decide is, was
this second will written. dated and signed
by the testator? This is the only point for
you TO decide.
This is hOlographic will. and unless
every word of it is written by Henry
Martin you must find against ii.
The burden OF proof lies upon the pro-
ponent TO show beyond doubt that this
instrument is genuine. The child of John
Martin, therefore. has the affirm alton.
"a Photographic will must be proved
either by some one who saw the testator
write it, or by some one who can identify
the handwriting. In this case there is no
evidence of any one having seen Henry
Martin write this will
1T is your right to inquire into the rela-
tiOnShips between the parties, and to draw
differences therefrom.
"You are not bound to decide 10 favor of
number OF witnesses against a less num-
Der upon whose testim ony you place more
reliance.
"YOu are not bound to be absolutely GER
tain-moraI certainty only is required.
You have been told by counsel that the
effect of your verdict may be to consgn
some person or persons TO prison. inform
you that this is a civil cause entirely, and
your verdict in this case could not be re-
ceived as evidence in any criminal pro-
ceedings. You have no right to consider
the effect OF your verdict.
III you think any evidence has been
suppressed by either party the nresump-
ton of law is against he suppressor.
This, however, is not conclusive.
THE question of the legitimacy of John
b. Martin is not to be considered in this
case. But the belief of Henry Martin in
tn is case. so far as proved to you, can be
taken into consideration as tending TO
show the probability or improbability of
the will being genuine
Each juror is answerable for his own
verdict, aud should not be guided by the
others unless convinced that he is right in
so doing.
witnesses may be watched in respect
to the value of their testimony. Their in
terest or lack of interest in the case can be
taken into consideration. A witness is
presumed 20 speak the truth. This pre-
sumption, however, can be repealed by the
manner of witness on the stand or by
evidence respecting his character for
truth, honesty and integrity.
AS matter of law a child born of a
wife whose husband Is not impotent is
presumed to be the lawful child of its
parents.
You may not take into consideration
the facts whether will is just or unjust,
equitable or nnequitabe.
''If John B. Martin were to die his
mother would inherit his estate. There
fore she is said to have an interest in this
case apart from her position as guardian
of the child"
After the usual instructions TO the Jury
respecting the form of verdict and the
requisite number needed to arrive at such,
the jury filed out of the room and the
people set to gossiping. General Barnes
was In court and of course in about two
mi nuieS he was the center of an admiring
throng. telling stories. Mrs. John Martin
vanished from the courtroom, while her
rival, Mrs. Henry, sat among her friends.
quietly awaiting the re suit. There was
false alarm or two which caused some
little excitement. and the time seemed to
have pass ed very rapidly when at ten
minutes 10 6, two and one-Quarter hours
after the jury had retired, Judge Coffey
took his seat on the bench on the in TINA
lion that an agreement had been arrived
at.
This time the rumor was true, and on
the jury taking their seats the all-import-
ant slip of paper was handed up to the
Judge by Foreman A. c. Rulofson.
"We, tie jury IN this case, find in an
swer TO the qestion, WAS this will of Feb
ruary 2S 1898, written, dated and signed
by Henry Martini no." The following
jurors found the verdict-A. c. Rulofson.
William ID. Pollock, j. B. Mersing, j. F.
Stemke, c. B. Abraham. M. r. Dempster,
Jeremiah I. Henley. Samuel ii. TAYLOR.
Tobias A. Siolz, Henry Norman. There
were two dssenters, r. 2. Wormbold and
Patrick t. Cody.
There was little or no fuss after the YER
dict. The vast assemblage quickly dis
persed, and for some time to come at least
the greatest trial of modern times in San
Francisco was erased from the calendar of
the Superior Court.