The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-09-05
ALL NEW TO HIM.
What Carroll Cook Had
to Relate
ABOUT THE FEB. "a LETTER.
Former Attorneys of Mrs. John
Prove Refractory.
-.
: HOW GENERAL BARNES SCORED.
For He Was Saved From Answer
ing a Question and lncurring
-. Contempt of Court.
HOW GENERAL BARNES SCORED.

VIII begin their arguments to the jury be-
lore tomorrow morning
The ninth week of the long trial was
ushered in peacefully enough. Judge
Coffey was chiefly distinguishable for a
late BARRIERS polish and for a mildness of
manner suggestive of much reflection since
that inevitable Sunday dinner. 1t was
noticed that no portrait of Mrs. Clara
FoltZ adorned his desk. kind hands havin g
come TO his rescue in this respect, but
apart from This the general surroundings
were as usual Judge Clarke of Los An
geles, himself a Probate Judge of note
occupied seat on the bench beside his
Honor.
Grove johnson had his weekly apology
to make regarding certain publications in
The newspapers that concerned letters ma
terial TO the case not vet offered in evil
Gence, after which DR.. ". S. Thorne was
called to the stand.
You attended Mrs. Henry Martin dur
ing her sickness in February. 1892"
b Il did,
DO you know Mrs. John Martin ?"
Il can't say that d." was the answer.
although she called on me one day in
February, 1898"
Lawyer Craig wanted TO ask the witness
anumber of questions regarding his con-
'versaton with Mrs. John Martin upon
that visit for the purpose of dsproving
uSE bIdlSD6HL 10 Lu6 eject LOdE sue saw
Henry Martin every day during his wife's
Sickness. But on the objection of Grove
. johnson the question was ruled out
did YOU receive a letter from Mrs. John
MARTINI" was asked.
= Another objection from johnson was
- Sustained, and then eDsued a discussion
. among the lawyers. Delmas and Craig
!: even went so far as to write upon piece
%Of paper what they expected to prove, but
to no purpose; the Judge stood firm. So
the contestants of the second will hunted
:: up another witness.
80 General Barnes" was called, and the
20 old warhorse stepped briskly up to the
=: stand. Once seated be glanced around
him in a confident manner, and bestowed
. suDdry smiles, mods and winks upon such
=. Of his friends as he thought would duly
appreciate these marks of favor. Then,
in answer to the first Interrogation, be
-: IuOdestly admitted that he was an attorney
: and counselor at law of this city.
:. Il show you exhibit v" said Mr.. Craig;
: ''the letter of February "a. 1892. When
: did you first see that letter?'
81 decline 10 answer" said the gentle
man in measured tones, ION the ground
that / am forbidden to do so under subdi-
vision 2 Of section 1881 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. To answer would involve a
preach of confidence between myself and
my client"
Craig tried another tack. '.Were you at
>torney for the proponeDt in this case when
yCQ nrSt saw that letter
- was associated in the case with Judge
George i. Williams and Carroll Cook [
first saw Mrs. John Martin in the fall of
last year, when proceedings were going on
10 WeaverYille. / remained her at
torney until the end Of May this year,
when / withdrew"
."Have you asked for Mrs. Martin since
then ?''
Mrs Martin has called at my Office and
has from time 10 time requested me to
return TO this case. She has told me
things on those visits. so that anything /
know would be received under the under
standing or expectation that | was to
return to the case"
''Do you claim, then. general, that this
letter was shown you in your professional
Ca pacty?"
The general was silent.
did you ever even see this letter before
you severed your connection with this
ease?"
MY idea is that all my senses belonged
at the time 10 my client. l do not tell
what l heard or saw"
you claim that any such communica-
. ton was inviolate? ?"
Barnes threw his chest out and shifted.
LAS [ am the keeper Of my own conscience,
sir i so regard it," was his reply.
DID you ever see this letter until you
ceaseG to be an attorney in this case?''
The witness grew weary at this per-
and turning to the Judge said
~ our Honor, do not claim my refusal
TO answer as privilege at all. | clai ~
that it IS an imperative mandate, lying at
the very foundation or that profession
which some OF US adoru more than Others"
and here the Judge glanced rapidly around
the room.
at this point there came an elaborate
address from Mr.. Delmas. The learned
counsel claimed that If his client i'd not
m q of
being asked the witness had no right to
shelter himself behind a so-called priv j.
lege. Under any circumstances the truth
ought not to be concealed, and in such an
important issue as the present the witness
ought to be made to answer.
Grove johnson had some fireworks
ready and he lat them off. He stuck closely
to The privilege of attorneys regarding
confidential communications. and limited
that Delmas & Co. had yelled purpose in
asking the question.
Delmas retorted in another speech that
the opposing counsel might think what he
nIeased. but all he had to say was that in
a case where letter bad been concealed
avowedly under q promise 10 mother as
in this case, and that mother had written
releasing her daughter from that promise
as in this case, it was proper 10 cast doubt
nnon the genuineness OF the letter by
showing that its recipient never avaied
herseIf of her mothers permission to show
ii to her own attorneys. Oeimas claimed
that this letter had been forged during the
trial. and that by this investigation he
songht to prove what he claimed.
Johnson had something to say about the
ethics of the profession. Il would rather"
said he, "adopt the ethics of the profess
sion as laid down by General Barnes than
as laid down by Mr. Heynemann," with
a whitening glance at the attorney cop-
nected with the discovery of the Crawford
letters. Just then Judge Coffey adjourned
court for lunch.
On resuming. General Barnes was again
placed on the rack, while the discussion
among attorneys was renewed. But the
Judge adhered firmly 20 bis ruling for the
time being, and so the witness was asked
when he first became attorney for the
John Martin side of the house. He re-
heated that it was in the fall of last year.
land when did you cease TO be such
Attorney"
ION April IA of this year wrote to Mrs
John Martin renouncing nay trust. On
MAY 20 | was formally released by the
court"
"You were retained by Mrs. Martin,
were you not, General?" asked the Judge
"Well," returned Barnes, with a smile
Of grim humoI. II was hardly retained by
Mrs. Martin. / was rather detained by
her"
II mean that yon received some none
targ considerations"
Nary a cent" was the emphatic an