The morning call., 1894-08-16
II can't remember. y

81 can't remem ber' = ~. &.
us this the telegram" asked Rodgers.
producing an alleged copy of the message.
NO. that Is not" was the firm reply.
.'Where was the messsg e sent from Pr
From New York City, r.
7 - Have you COPY of p" - II:
-.~"Oh, no, sir; was too i'll to keep copies -
How was your telegram worded ?''
f Il don't remember. But all / sent were
| worded alike from one draft, except those
! to nv husband and mother
r. WHO was YOUR physician 2' r.. IT,
+ DR. Van Y alZah.' r. ...:.... H.:
F. did he wire to Mr.. Crawford for you.'
I II think lot.' ~: = ~.
did he know Mr.. Crawford" "a. 81
~ Objection sustained. r.. r. " :. ~.
+. DID you see DR.. Van Valzah on May 6,
! 1891 ?'' . T.. + , :,
z.:"'..Y es, ;hree times. Once in the morn
ing, again in the afterno Don, aud in the ey-
/ ening." *..* E.. i. ~.
Il" Some more questions were put to the wit.
ness on this subject, the result being that
Mrs. Martin denied that she got DIR. Van
+ Y allan to send any messages for her.
She did not remember that he ever sat
| down IN her presence and sent messages
at her request. = r: =.
Did you telegraph.to Andrew Crawford
on May7. s, Cor 10?'' =: =.
+ II don't remember" ..:s..: ...:.. =.
lz."Did you wire to him subsequently, tn
/ May 6, 1891? -. H.. =: = -
+ yes, 1 did so just before / left New
York. asked him to send me some m money
|: he 0 wed me- =
..What,d day did you leaye?"
~ i don't Temem bef." ~. ~ r.
I'm what mon th % f. r. :.
~ In j uly." r.. ~. -. -. -: RI
s. Then when did you telegraph to An
drew Crawford Pr. - =: :.
:" wo days before left" -
bow much money did he: we you7 ?"
objection TO this question. being sus-
tanned. Arthur Rodgers handed the wit
ness ness telegram, which. however. Mrs.
Martin refused TO Identify. The counsel
endeayored 10 get her to say when she had
sent the message, but she could not re-
member. Rodgers made valiant effort to
get the contents before the jury. by quoting
from the dispatch, but his plans were
frustrated by the successful objection OF
Grove L. johnson.
+ Finally, Rodgers managed to ask: "ln
that telegram did you demand from Mr..
Crawford SCOOP" An objection to this
question was also successful.
When ynu telegraphed TO Mr.. Crawford
on May 8, 1891. was he indebte to you ?''
Yes"
Was he so Indebted on June1Y,
He was"
And on May 25?"
| BE was"
dodgers selected from the letters In
II9nt OF MIN one dated May 81, 1891, and
asked the witness If she had written il.
/ i IN not an expert in handwriting" she
replied, "butit looks like mine. though
never composed 1t. nor did put nv pen
! to it," ny Pon
Arthur Rodgers then wished to intro.
duce this letter in evidence. but Johnson
oolecteo' as IL had been repudiated by the
witness. Rodgers claimed that as Expert
Schmidt had pronounced il genuine IL
could be introduced FOR the purpose OF i'm
peaching the witness. This being a serious
/ question:, Judge Coffey allowed the iury a
little exercise in the corridor while he
heard arguments on the subject. i: :.
johnson argued .yehemently of the I'M
parchment by counsel of their ow n wit
ness. He maintained also that the letter
was not suffice nty ir0ved - :: !:
:. 1t has been limited by Mr. Delmas.n he
said. THAT we fear that this witness will
testify falsely. We do not fear that But"
and the Sacramento lawyer spoke with
emphasis, I'VE do fear forged letters and
periured testimony. IL is Qnestion. of
the amount OF money to be given 10 en-
ploy people to testify.
mot that i mean that the learned coun-
sci would resort to that" said johnson,
with bow TO his antagonists. "but /
mean that such a proceeding opens the
door for that kind of testimony and also
for hearsay."
Crit Thornton made supplementary
argument on the same side. after which
Judge Coffey remarked that the child's
allegation was that it was the son of Ohm
b. Martin and of lis wife. Elizabeth j.
Martin. Such was the assertion made BY
The latter. as the child's guardian.