The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-07-24

Mr.. Breckenfeld, please take that letter
| of February %, 1890. You were not con-
! fdently prepared to say whether or NOT
that was written by Henry Martln. Wha'
| do you say nOw?"
Il say it was not written by Henry Mar
tn," replied Breckenfed. thereby once
more mixing matters up.
That's ALL
Expert Schmidt was then recalled TO an
! swer the question whether or not the letter
of February o. 1890, was written by the
same hand that wrote the alleged second
will.
ut was not written by the same hand, "
! he said.
Yet it was not written by Henry Mar
tin. you say" asked johnson.
mo. 1t was written by some other
party
johnson was satisfied, but Crittenden
| Ihorlton exhibited signs of thirst for
! further knowledge. So Schmidt was made
! to tell his reasons. The chief ones were
upon the formation of the Fps" and also
| the fact that the letter was written well
over the lines of the paper instead OF
exactly upon them as in the second Will.
Before departing Schmidt was permitted
to make an explanation. He said 1t was
unfair to expect person to judge from
signatures alone. ANY ordinary penman
can with little practice initiate sigma
! ture so that the owner would not be able
| TO tell it from his own" said the witness
1t is easier TO prove genuine signature
to be forgery than il is TO prove forgery
genuine. That is because no man signs
his name twice exactly alike But it is
impossible 10 keep this up Tor whole
page without being detected"
johnson Immediately produced new
document. Talking about pages" he
said, look al this. Was this written by
| Henry Martin ?"
Anhy bod For III fO M a
! document, and in the meantime another
| witness was called to the stand.
| Ex-senator John McMurry, prominent
mining man of Weeverville, Trinity
| County. was the next witness. He proved
| To be a mild-Ooking man. who, when he
took the chair. just looked around for a
| place to deposit his hat and stick. and then
searched for a cuspidor. Finally he be-
| came con- posed. He said he knew both
| Martins He knew John Martin from 1852
and Henry from April 1870. John Mar
tin lived in Weaverville for some time be-
fore he went TO the mines.
Did you have any conversation with
Henry Martin about the reported birth of
this child, JOnn b. Martin Jr., in New
York ?" asked Arthur Rodgers.
An objection by Grove l.. johnson to this
question was sustained by the court.
Arthur Rodgers tried several ways of
putting similar questions with the view of
ascertaIDing Henry Martins opinions re-
garding the paternity of this child but
they were not allowed. Mr. Rodgers then
appealed TO the court, saying that it was
desired TO show that the language of the
second will was impossible and contained
statements not true. Henry Martin had
no gratitude TO feel toward his brother
and consequently Henry Martins feelings
on the subject, as expressed to his friends,
ought to be admitted il evidence. Mr..
Rodgers offered to cite authorities in sup
port of his point.
Grove johnson said he also had au-
th0rties TO cite, and the question was
passed until arguments could be heard in
the absence Of the jury during the noon
recess. Rodgers then asked the Witness:
did you converse with Henry Martin
in 1890, in which he expressed his feelings
toward Mrs. John Martini"
The same objections were raised to this
question as 10 the other, with the further
objection that Mrs. John Martin was not a
party 10 the action. More authorities were
offered by both lawyers, and this question
also was passed until the retirement of the
jury.
Mr.. McMurry stepped down for the
present and Expert Schmidt being ready
to answer the question as to the letter of
July 90. 1892, he again took the stand.
Il think this letter is in the genuine
handwriting of Henry Martini" he said.
Johnson looked pleased, and then asked
the witness to examine the letter and say
how many terminal "es" therein were
Topped.
sixteen" answered the witness after
an examination.
And how many IT'S connected with the
letters preceding them by an upstroke ?"
Nine"
There you and L agree" courteously
remarked johnson.
Before proceedings were resumed for
the afternoon Attorneys Delmas and
johnson argued at some length, in the
absence of the jury. upon the two Ques-
tons regarding Martins expressions of
opinion. This was the first time that
Delmas had opened his mouth since the
beginning of the trial. He quoted all
kinds of authorities, with the object. of
course, of showing that in all cases where
wills are In dispute the feelings of a tes-
tator toward an alleged beneficiary are
deemed to be relevant TO the ISSUE Mr.
Delmas spoke for long time and sat
down with the air OF one who has COM
pletely exhausted the subject and himself
Grove johnson made shorter speech in
reply. He objected to most of the author
tiles introduced by DeImas as having been
the decisions OF Isl rTius courts, whereas
the authorities he had TO cite were from
Supreme Court decisions. The arguments
on beth sides being purely on matters of
fidgeted about until all was over.
The final warwhOOp of Johnson was to
the point that the AUTHORITIES quoted by
Delmas had about as much relevancy to
the question at bar as transit of Venus
to the raising of wheat in the San joaquin
Valley" Judge Coffey heard him patiently,
and when all was done denied his obiec-
tiOnS to the questions with exceptions
noted. Delmas and Rodgers looked su-
prenely happy. Grove johnson won-
dered at the Judges reversal of himself.
Judge Coffey ordered the jury to be called
in. Two or three jurors, however, turned
up missing for moment or two, and the
court looked angry.
One juror came to the rescue. as he
thought. Your Honor" he says, ION be-
half of the absent jurors"
"Please don't, please don't" hastily in
terposed Judge Coffey, fearing another
speech, and the juror sat down abasbed.
Senator McMurry was then recalled to
answer the two important questions re-
Gently ruled upon. He said he had several
conversations with Henry Martin with
respect to the paternity of The child. Mar
tin said it was neither Johns child, nor
the child of Mrs. John. "He thought it
was another Ray Hamilton case" said
the witness.
"Wnen did this conversation take
placer"
ia San Francisco. on Geary street. In
May, 1891"
Mr.. McMurry said he had several con-
versatiOns with the deceased on the sub
ject. One took place in the courtyard of
tue Palace Hotel. The child prepayment of
| the second Will was referred to then in a
| conversation regarding Mrs. John Martin.
wDafr