The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-04-25

tne cnarge mere was only man
slaughter. and that the only defense
Samis and Cook were called upon to
make was to show that. the death of Mrs.
Samis was not due to their willful ne
glect in failing to call medical aid.
Justice Young took this view of the
case and Mrs. Mary S. Isbell's personal
experiences were cut short. The rest of
her cross-exam inati developed nothing
new materially
The next witness. Nancy ]. Hatch,
was also strongly imbued with the prin-
ciples of Christian science. She had
known the late Mrs. Samis for four years,
and together they had read the Bible from
beginning to end for confirmation of their
views. A physician had been called In to
see Mrs. Samis during her illness, but
no medicine had been given the sick
woman. However, witness said, she had
lacked for no care Or nursing. At the
time of Mrs. Samis' death her husband,
one of the accused, was lying i'll at the
home of a neighbor. In conversation with
the witness deceased had told her that
horse could be led to the water, but he
could not be made to drink. 1t was ex-
actly her case. They might bring doc
tor TO her-whon she did not want-but
they could not make her cake medicine.
George G. Samis, laborer, brother of
the defendnt Samis, had nothing new
to TELL but during his examination by
Assistant District Attorney Williams said
that part of the course of treatment of
Christian scientists is to let the patients
have anything to eat that they may call
for. 1t is said that there is a difference
between faith cure and Christian science,
witness said, but he did not know what
it was, as he had not studied the former.
DR.. J. b Cook, a practicing physician
who must not be mitaken for one of the
defendants. resident of Whittier. test-
fed that he had been called on the 18th of
March to examine Mrs. Samis during h er
illness. Sams told witness that his wife
had been attended by Christian scien-
tist from Los Angeles named Cook, and
that he was perfectly satisfied with his
treatment, but he wanted her examined
by physician for the reason that the
Quakers in the neghborhood were rals-
ing fuss because no regular doctor had
been called in. Samis said that his wife
was crazy. Witness examined the patient
and informed her husband that she was
suffering from puerperal insanity. and
that unless she was we'll taken care of she
would die. The woman was delirious.
She did not recognize the doctor, but she
knew he was one because he had cold
hands. Mrs. Samis died of blood poison
ing. There is no doubt in the
mind of witness that Mrs. Sams was In
sane when seen by him.
On cross-examination the doctor said
that at the time he visited the patient he
did not think she was in need of medi
cine, and there were no signs then of
blood poisoning. She died ten days later.
Mr.. Bowers asked a number of very
complicated hypothetical questions of the
witness. who protested repeatedly that he
could not keep all them completely in his
mind at one time. for the purpose of
getting him to say that the conclusions
he had reached on the day of his visit
were that Mrs. Samis was then in fair
way to recover. Witness assented to
this.
DR.. Campbell, the coroner, gave the
result of the post mortem examinat ton
on the body of the deceased. All the
organs were in normal condition with
the exception of the abdominal cavity,
which contained pus. This gathering
might have existed eight or ten days be-
fore dissolution. Witness knew nothing
of the case, prior to the post mortem ex-
animation. From his examination of the
body. however, the coroner was astisfied
that there must have been discharge of
pus before death, beginning probably
soon otter confinement. He spoke of
some statement in this regard made by
defendant Cook at the time of the in
quest, but this was ruled out.
James Welcomes of Whittier. constable
of Los Nietos township. went to Samis'
house seven or eight days before the wo-
mans death with ex-Humane Officer
case. Mr.. Samis did not care to let his
wife be seen by strangers. He said she
was being treated by Christian science.
In reply to questions he admitted that
she was partially insane, and also that
she refused to have a physician. Mr..
Wright asked defendant if he did not
know that he was rendering himself
amenable to the law in case Mrs. Samis
died. Samis replied that he would take
his chances on that. and told Wright
that he had no right in his house. He
added that if he wanted a physician he
could get one in town. Witness and Mr..
Wright heard somebody talking, crying,
singing and laughing in the house. and
Samis admitted that 1t was his wife.
Witness did not know that there was any
prejudice against Samis on account of his
Christian science practice.
Complaining Witness NJ. Wright when
placed upon the stand. said he was over
the age of 81. This did not surprise any
body. Witness related his visit to the
Samis household. Mr.. Samis refused to
let him in because he had no right there.
Wright warned defendant of the risks he
was taking in leaving his wife uncared
for. Samis said he would take chances.
The rest of his evidence was corroborative
of Constable Welcomes. Defendant said
that his wife was being attended to by
DIR. Cook of Los Angeles, Christian sci
ence healer, and that they did not believe
in medicine. The witness informed
Samis that in case of death it would be
his duty to prosecute him for neglect.
On cross examination Mr.. Wright said
that while he might have had no preju-
dice against Christian science two hours