The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-11-20

VIII Hlin HOW the nus Oanu minister Wrote
tDe letters TO entrap his own wife. and
that all this gave the lie to the whole of
Russelps testimony
It's an infamous case" shouted Knight.
There bias been a well-defned, paid line
of perjurers engaged TO come here and
testify. See to what depth of depravity
the defense has been brought to in this
case. This is. only the entering wedge"
Ihen Knight went off on another volcanic
expedition. and talked of Henry |. Stuart.
He was stopped by Judge Murphy.
Il think there has been too much to Tx
of this man Stuart said his Honor. II
don't mind saying right here that am not
much impressed with Stuart or his tesii-
moDy. Perhaps / may be hereafter" said
the Judge with meaning emphasis.
At this expression of judicial opinion
George Knight look proportionately joy-
Jul and Nj. a. Dorm proportionately sick.
Finally, after bit of a legal struggle,
George Knight succeeded in Introducing
the Vera" letter in evidence. It read as
follows:
OAKLAND, July 8. 1894
Dear Madam: If the incIosed notice of d.
vorce proceedings, taken from Monday even
lng's paper, refers TO Mr.. RUSSELL the shoe mer
chant, Market street, San Francisco think 1
could give you some information that might be
OF service 10 you. Address Vera, Oakland
Postofhce, where an interview can be had.
Your address got from friend of yours by
chance. My husband would be very much
opposed To this If he knew It, but l am no saint
myself, and would like TO help you If l can. Be
careful about any publicity on account of my
husband, as he would be very angry il he knew
1 would mix myself up in such thing. Hoping
10 hear from you soon. remain, your friend,
VERA.
p ST. intend leaving Oakland In a few DAYS
for San Jose, but should you wish TO answer
this [ may have an interview before | leave,
which 1 think will be Monday. but will return
soon. VERA.
George Knight closed his cross-examina-
ton somewhat abruptly, and Russell was
released from purgatory. Then, by per-
mission, Otto tum SUDDEN. attorney-atlaw,
was permitted TO testify that he knew
Henri |. Stuart very we'll, and that his
reputation for truth, honesty and integrity
was the reverse Of good. CrosS-examina-
ton proved fruitless.
George D. Russell, son of the defendant,
said be was II years OF age. He was
asked if he had ever seen his ste pmother,
Mrs. Russell, under the influence of liquor
i've seen her in such state of intox-
cation that she was actually swimming on
the bed" Here the witness made mr.
ton with his hands as though he were
powing his way through the surf. Then,
in answer to further questions. he went on:
MRS. Russell never received my father
properly. She seemed TO always wish 10
pick a quarrel with him." TIE witness
related here the incident of the rotten pear
dropping on 10 The plug hat of Mr. Russell
db D6 lclb VIC uOuoo 1Ul u walk one ui6
Sunday Then followed testimony re-
garding Mr.. Russell's indignation over a
certain family dinner, with the accidental
result of carving-knife wound to Mrs.
Russell
II. B. Russell. another son of the de-
PENDANT. said he lived at home while
when Mrs. Russell was on deck. II was
the hottest place on earth. he thought. as
his stepmother possessed a temper. His
father always tried To sootbe her, despite
The fact that she accelerated his appetite
from time 10 time by putting ashes in his
soup and soda in his meat, etc.
1t was at this juncture that NJ. A. Dorm,
having no more verbal testimony To offer,
offered the printed record of the suit of
Eva /. Lord VS.. Charles i. Lord, brought
some years ago in the Superior Court OF
Sonoma County. It will be noticed that
the plaintiffs initials in The Russell case
are Eva B., not Eva l. On being asked
what he did this for Mr.. Dorm was heard
to say that he proposed to contend that this
plaintiff was never married to Russell.
She was Mrs Lord at the time aud was
powerless to contract such marriage.
You've admitted the marriage ia your
answer, Mr.. Dorm" said Judge Murphy,
after some discussion. 81 can't allow the
document"
Then we beg leave to Introduce an
amended complaint said Dorm. aud pa
per was promptly produced. which struck
out all the admissions contained in the
first answer respecting the marriage, and
In substitution stated that though the
sem blance OF marriage ceremony had
been gone through between this plain if
and defendant, yet that at that par ocular
time the plaintiffs real title and descrip-
ton was Eva l. Lord. Russell was sworn
to this amended complaint in court, and
then Dorm proposed to introduce it in evil
dence.
George Knight objected vigorously. and |
Judge Murphy warned Dorm that by so |
doing he was placing his client in very |
awkward position; but Dorm said he'd |
take the risk, and the amended complaint |
was declared filed. Then Dorm said: Now
can once more introduce the record Of |
this case, Lord VS.. Lord.
What dye seek to show by that?" |
asked Knight, testify.
81 propose to show that Mrs. Russell |
was married woman when she married |
Russell"
There was lot of trouble, but the rec
ord was allowed and was read in sub |
stance By Dorm. The purpose of the |
whole thing was to show that Mrs. Russell |
had admitted her marriage to Lord, had |
brought witnesses to Orroborate her and |
had been fin ally denied her divorce by the |
court She had told Russell previous to |
his marriage with her that she was never !
married tn Lord.
George Knight said that If the intention |
of the defendant was to annpl the mar
riage on the ground that 1t had been |
illegally contracted be desired to bring |
motion to strike from the record all the |
evidence touching upon infidelity. If there
was no marriage such evidence would be
valueless. Knight was allowed till this
morning to prepare his motion and court
took recess.
There are three bailiffs in attendance
and those who miss the overture this morn
ing and so fail to fDd seats will be ex-
cluded from the courtroom.
THE Worlds Fair award to DR.. Prices