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

because of letters she had written him and
that he lad written her"
No; but he impressed me as being
afraid of her.
did he not tell you he paid her $1,000 on
one occasion when she fell sick at the
Baldwin Hotel 2"
mo; she said she wanted a team from
John, and that if he wouldn't buy it for
her she'd make Henry do so. Whether
Henry did so or not don't know. once
rode behind the team"
Would you be surprised to hear that
Henry bought that team /"
II might be-"
The witness said that at the Baldwin
Hotel Henry Martin spoke of John as try
ing to work" a separation from his wife.
He said that if John would only get rid OF
that woman" he'd give him half he pos
sessed. Henry, however, put up no money
toward such a separation.
John Martin was a wealthy man when
Henry came to Weavervile poor. He was
we'll off until shortly after he married.
Henry did not say anything about the
child being got from founding hospital.
Grove johnson fairly reveled in some of
these questions. being evidently we'll posted
in men and places uD country. DE wanted
to contradict McMurry's testimony show
ing that Henry Martin was not at that 1892
miners convention, at which he was pres
the witness con versation with Henry Mar
tin took place after the convention had
adjourned.
In redirect examination McMurry said
John was worth S75. 900 at the Time OF his
marriage. When he died the exhumation
of his body was done by order Of the Cor
oner.
You have no particular hatred of Mrs.
John Martin? ?"
mo. l simply have my opinion OF her
as woman of character and reputation.
LIS based on hearsay. L met Mrs. Jonn
Martin in Weaverville and saw her there
frequently"
Expert Schmidt was recalled and shown
bill between John aud Henry Martin.
He pronounced Henry's signature thereto
to be genuine. A letter of June IL. 1892,
was not genuine. Another unimportant
letter of May 16. 1892, was genuine, he
thought. This was all testified 10 in reply
to questions from Grove johnson.
Would you like to look at some other
letters of that date ?"
Schmidts patience gave out. Mr..
Johnson" he said, Pm willing TO obige
you, but my time is not my own. Iheres
nothing in this for me and | want to see
u o more letters"
An envelope inclosing a letter al
dressed September S, 1882. was then shown
TO the witness. He pronounced the en-
SciUpO W udY6 De6U WTltt6u NY hCuAJ
MarIin, but the letter not.
In redirect examination Mr.. Schmidt
said that the letter of October 8. 1892 to
Dear Belle" the letter of September 8,
lo92, ana the second will were all written
by one and the same hand. And then
Rodgers introduced the new letter In
evidence. 1t reads as follows:
PALACE HOTEL, Sept. 8. 1892.
Dear Belle: Replying 10 your note OF the I'm
inst. requesting me to 90 on your bond. / could
not do II without Mays finding 1t out, and that
only makes me trouble. dear. VIII see you IA
you 50 desire. / Will do all can for you with.
out her hndlng us out. Don't misunderstood
me. darling. Love- HENRY.
The letter created a sensation in court.
Then Grove Johnson said: III Henry
Martin wrote any one OF those three docu-
mentS ne 9, wrote them all. in your opinion e
Yes, answered Mr.. Schmidt CONN
dently. after which he was allowed to de-
| part in peace
United States District Attorney Easter
then took the stand. He said he knew
| both Martins well. He knew HenIy in
| WeaverviIle. He also knew Mrs. Henry
Martin. Henry Martin often spoke to
him about Johns child, saying that he
| Deiieved that neither was John the 1ather
nor Mrs. John the mother of the little
| fellow
The important part OF the witness, tes-
tlmony was tn the effect that he had been
employed by Henry Martin to give advice
AS 10 and TO answer several letters ad-
dressed by Mrs. John Martin 10 her
Drother,ln-law at the Baldwin Hotel In
1892. Henry Martin seemed afraid of
Mrs. John, and as he did not wish to see
her he wanted to know how best to avoid
| trouble as we'll as an inter view.
| Arthur Rodgers then nroceeded to intro
duce several If there letters and reply and