The morning call., 1894-09-12

argument of Arthur Rodgers to the effect
that had Martha intended to make W IL
! he would not have made 1t in such terms
as were contained in the disputed docu-
/ m mt, referred again TO the attack made bv
! the other side upon Mrs. John Martin, It
Is tie object of the other sde," he said,
''to install this woman in your minds in-
stead of this little boy. What do they
| mean by some of their insinuati0ns? Do
| they mean TO say that Mrs. John Martin
would make away with her child in the
event OF its success in this action? If not,
| what do thev mean?
Counsel then proceeded to speak of the
various witnesses callea, giving synopsis
of their evidence. Speaking of T. a.
| Goodwin, Linforth said: "Mr. Goodwin
| told you that Mr.. Martin spoke lenderly
/ OF his brother John, and said be was not
going to forget the boy. Mr. Rodgers in
! his speech admitted that this was true.
! Are we to presume that Martin was lying
when he said so? II so, If he would tell
that kind of lie to Johns friend. wouldn't
| he also lie TO his wife'S friends when he
said that in his opinion Mrs. John Martin
was a forger, blackmailer and the muT-
deress Of his brOlbpf?
''If they knew it was natural for him
TO make such a statement why did they
| cross-eXamlne Old Mr. Goodwin for more
than an hOur?'
Another point on which Mr.. Rodgers in
Cured tile criticism of the speaker was
| upon the EXPRESSED belief of Mr.. Rodgers
Ia the testimony of Mrs. Tibbets. Mr..
LinfOrih suggested that the belief or dis
belief of Mr.. Rodgers mattered little to
the issue untacked by evidence This
question was touched upon 1t some length,
| as was the evidence concerning that little
| lunch enjoyed by Henry Martin and his
sistor-in-aw at the Palace Hotel in Janu-
airy, 1898. In support OF this the evidence
0f Drno oil
Third Mate ChamblisS was quoted as be-
ing worthy of credence.
AS to Mrs. John Martins witnesses on
the subject Of the alleged Intimacy be-
tween hat lady and Henry Martin, Mr..
Lnforth had TO say: They were at
lacked simply because they were women"
Then be spoke OF the testimony of Mrs.
Arthur Cornwall and the doubt cast upon
IL by reason of the shock over the death of
l.. l.. Robinson, which occurred ten
months previous to the alleged interview
between Mrs. Cornwall and Mrs. John
Martin at 504 GeaTY street.
Mrs. Cornwall had only just heard of
that death, gentlemen" said Lini0Itb,
"and by the evidence of witnesses intro
duced by the other SIDE a ten months
shock can be greater than nine months
| shock"
1t was sought by the counsel TO contrast
| the testimony OF this and other witnesses
with that OF j. Preston Woods. that of w.
j. Dingee and that of Mr.. Phillips. 10
Mr. Woods LinfOrth referred as ''that $500
| man who did not come forward to testify
in this case until his claim against the
estate had been paid" Referring to Mr..
! Dingee, LInf0rth spoke Of that real-estat te
man of Oakland who was refused admit
tance to Henry Martins rooms at the
! Palace because orders were given that
Mrs. John Martin should not be allowed
10. Was Mr.. Dlngee representing Mrs.
| Martin? Did he look like her?"
In due time Mr.. Linforth got off this
sui ject and devoted himself TO the ques-
ton of little John Martins birth. He
said II was absurd that the other side
should claim thai they only disputed the
chlld's parentage because they were forced
to do so by heir antagonists. In refutng
this LinfOfth had recourse TO the answer
filed aud sworn TO by Mayor Pond. in
which ii was expressly asserted that little
John was neither the son of John Martin
nor Of Isabelle j. Martin, his wife.
That never-to- be-loTg0tten letter of Feb
ruary "a, 1892, came in for much explana-
ton. "It was written with coarse pen. -
urged counsel. why, here are several
of Henry Hsrtin's admitted writings that
look as il they had been written with a
stick.
"lhen it is claimed that the dating is
wrong. l shall show you that Henry
Martin was in the habit of misdating MS
letters"
In further explanation Mr.. Linforth
claimed that Henry Martin had evidently
written the letter in question in bed.
III Is asked why he did not forthwith
! deposit this will in his safe Deposit box
| when lie went out that morning of Feb
ruary "a Gentlemen, l am not sure, but
believe that the office of the company was
not open at o'clock in the morning And
when you are asked why should Henry
| Martin write a letter TO his sister-ip-laW
inclOsing this second will? II is an insult
to your intellect, gentlemen. Did any one
OF you ever inciOse check to some one,
without accompanying a note, Dear sir.
herewith incl0se. etc.'2"
Expert testimony closed Mr. Liufortb's
lecture for the day. He endeavored to
show how by the nature of their evidence
the experts Breckenfeld, Schmidt, Max
well aud Fogle really swore the viii was
genuine. Mr.. Linforth descanted at great
length uDon the value OF the reasons given
by Expert BTeckenfell for his very strong
opinion on the question of forgery.
His reasons, gentlemen, are no more
justified than was the act which ended his
own life" Then Mr.. Linforth tr0tted out
the blackboard, seized a piece of chalk
and proceeded to give an expert lecture OF
his own. 1t occupied the remainder OF
the days session.
! When Linforth gets through, Mr.. Craig
! Will speak for the other side.