The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-12-23
SOME WITNESSES TESTIMONY.

lnerJ Is possibility that Mrs. Louisa
WOrthingtOn may go free. The Supreme
Court has granted a new trial 10 the poor,
half-demen ed woman, VINO in a fit of
jealous rage and despair shot and killed
her lover, Harry Baddeley as he was a bout
TO embark Tor Stockton. on May ., 1898.
The circumstances of the case must be
well remembered by all readers of THE
CALL. Mrs. Worthlngt on, the wife of
wei-knOwn phOtogra pher of this city, and
with two young children, met Baddeley in
1898, while her husband was absent in
Europe. The two became intimate. and
shortly after WorthingJOn's return his
wife eloped with Baddeley. The latter de-
serted her, however, in Stock ton, leaving
her destitute, but, on account OF her chill
dren. she was forgiven aud taken back by
her husband.
But Mrs W0rthington continued TO cor
respond with Baddeley after this, both
directly and through Annie Kelly, a servant
In Worthingt On'S employ. In one letter
she wrote: "He (her husband) said that
he will give me a weeks time in which to
find you, and when do I must shoot you
or be shot myself. So what am l going
to do? l am sure l dOn't know what TO
do unless l shoot myself. l think that's
the best thing to do. l would not give
you away to save my life. l love you too
much TO do that"
Baddeley returned to San Francisco and
ca lied upon Mrs. WOrthingtou. Accord
ing to her story, on one occasion he at
tenn pied to assault her, whereup0n she
fred at him. Badd eley afterward pro-
posed to Mrs. WOrthington to re new his
relations With her, and she told her has
band. WOrthington went out, purchased
a pistol and gave it to his wife, bidding
her protect her honor and shoot Baddeiey
the first time De interfered with her. That
evening Mrs. WOrthngtOn went down to
the wharf and KILLED Baddeley as he was
about 10 embark for Stockton.
Mrs. WOrthiugton was arrested, held,
tried and convicted OF murder in the sec
ond degree. A sentence of twenty-five
years imprisonment was passed on her,
and from the judgment and sentence an
appeal was taken TO the higher court.
The most important witness for the pros
ecutiOn was the servant, Annie Kelly.
She testified as TO the improper relations
existing between Mrs. Wori hington and
Harry Baddeley, and Of devices on the
part of the unfortunate woman to deceive
her husband. The evidence" says the
Supreme Court, tended TO show, and was
evidently introduced for the purpose of
showing deDTaved conduct on the part OF
the defendant, that she was not seduced
from Il state of Innocence by the deceased.
"a number of letters were read in con-
nectiou with her testimony, which she
claimed were written by her at the in
stance of the defendant and addressed 10
Baddeley. They were mostly written
during the short period that the deceased
was absent from the city. They assured
deceased of the great affection of detend-
ant for deceased. and implored him TO re-
turn to her. AS BadGeley did return
and was soon thereafter killed by defend
ant. the effect they were likely to have is
obvious"
Commenting thus upon her testimony
the Supreme Court calls attention to the
fact that from Annie Kelly's letter to
Baddeley there was reason to believe that
the relation of mistress and lover existed
between them. If this were shown it
would tend to explain the urgent requests
to Baddeley to return, and also 10 prove
a special spite agaiDsU defendant for having
killed her lover" Yet an objection to a
question asked Annie Kelly in cross
examination, an answer TO which would
throw light on this subject. was sustained
by the curt. This ruling was erroneous,
the Supreme Court remarking:
'"The best comment upon this ruling is
found in 'Greenleaf On Evidence vol. l,
sec. 446: 'Therpower of cross-examina-
ton has been justly said 10 be one of the
Principal as 1t is certainly one of the mos
efflcaciOus tests which the law has devised
1Or the discovery OIL liuLn. DIV means OF
IL the situation OF the witness with re-
spect to the parties aud TO the subject of
litigation, his il terest, his motives, his in
cliDation and prejudlces, his means of OBJ
taning a correct and certain knowledge of
the facts 10 which he bears testimony, the
manner in which he has used those means,
his powers Of discernment, memory and
description are al fully investigated
and ascertained and submitted t. the con-
sideraiOn of the jury before whom he has
testified To investigate just such matters
as that is one of the best reasons for allow
ing cross-examin atoms at ALL"
W0rthing ton is a prominent witness for
the defense. He said that I'm his efforts to
find out where his wife was be called Il on
the Baddtleys. He related some CONVEX
sa ion he had with them, being allowed TO
do this because he said DE tad related it to
his wife. and the question Of her sanity
was being investigated. Insanity and
hypnotsm were the grounds on which the
defense rested.
On crOss-examinatlOn, the People We're
allowed, over the objec ion of he defend
ant To ask him if he did not 10 that con-
yersation say that he once asked his wife
to go to the Mldwinter Fair and she
pleaded a headache rs an excuse. He de-
MED that he had said so. whereuUon Wit
nesses were called for the prosecution to
contradict him.
The Supreme Court says: "This was
clearly error. Admitting that Worihng-
ton could have been asked on cross-ex-
animation il he made tie statement. be-
cause the remark was maze in conversa-
tion of which he had related portion,
still it was not binding upon his wife.
his admission was not evidence against
her. Ii was therefore immaterial whether
be made the remark or not, and his denial
was conclusive"
Ills also decided that the court erred in
refusing to permit estimony by the family
physician as To the condition OF Mrs.
Worthington's mind at the time OF his
Treatment of her. twice at the birth OF
children and once for womb trouble. On
this point tina court states: TO this in
quiry tile character aud quality OF de-
fendants mind is a material iacf. 1t
was a fact which might have
favorable or unfayorabIe effect to
the defense according to circumstances.
Action which would seem strange
or abnormal in a person OF strong mind
might not seem so in a person OIL weak
mind. 30, too, it might show person
predlsposed to certain species OF mental
disease. The evidence OF insanity In the
case was certainly of the weakest, yet the
counsel had right TO submit it TO the
jury, and think the witness should have