The herald., 1895-12-31
MAYNE ORDERED 70 ANSWER
He Must Tell Who Told Him of
BabcOck's Persecution
THE QUESTION is RELEVANT
II Must Be Answered or Mayne Will
Be in Contempt.
Proceedings Before Judge Ross In the United
States Circuit Court Yesterday After
noon-Generai Court Notes
THE QUESTION is RELEVANT

Proceedings in the case of the Consol
idated Water company, complainant, vs..
L. S. Eabcock, president of the Southern
California Mountain Water company, were
continued before Judge Ross in the United
States circuit court yesterday afternoon.
The case had been dropped on Saturday at
the examination before Commissioner Van
Dyke, in Sheriff Burr's office, at the point
where Clifton E. Mayne in giving his depo-
sition regarding the alleged bribery of the
members of the common council of San
Diego, refused to answer a question direct
ed TO bring out the name of the person
from whom he received the information
that E. S. Babcock was engaged in perse-
cutting him on the charge of rape before
the superior court.
Mr.. Babcock was represented by j. A.
Gibson and W. j. Hunsaker, and Oscar A.
Trppe was present for the conn. ..,.ant.
H. L. Doolttle appeared for the other de-
PENDANTS.
The matter of the admissbility of the
question which Mayne had refused to an
swer was argued on both sides, w. J. Hun.
saker for the defendants holding that the
question was proper one, and supporting
his argument with number of local
authorities. Mr.. Trippett replied at some
length. He said that he had no objection
to the witness answering the question il
the court ruled that it was in order. The
object of the inquiry, said he, was to learn
if the witness had any prejudice against
the defendant. That he had, he himself
admitted. Mayne said that he made the
affidavit because Babcock was prosecuting
him. His feeling against the defendant
is clearly shown in that. We admit that it
is perfectly proper to question witness
for the purpose of learning whether or
not he is prejudiced, but when he ad,
mts it there is no further need
Of interrogatipg him in that direction.
There can be no reason for going further
into the matter to show to what extent the
witness is prejudiced or in what way the
prejudice WAS formed. In substantiation
of his position Mr.. Trippett cited numer-
GUS opinions handed down from the SUI
preme court of this and other states.
j. A. Gibson replied briefly and the point
was submitted to the court, who ruled that
the question was proper one, and that an
order of court would be issued requiring
Mayne to answer. II the witness persists
in refusing to answer what the court has
decided is proper question, proceedings
for contempt will be in order, but cannot
be brought until the defendant has satisfied
the Judgment rendered against him by the
State court.
The taking of Mayne's deposition will be
continued at 10 o'clock this morning,
whep, according to the ruling of the court,
he will be required to state who it was who
informed him that E. S. Babcock was as
sisting in the prosecution on the charge of
rape. ''. -
AS Mayne is already in Jail. and has
sentence of twenty-five years in the peni-
Tertiary hanging over him, it is rather diff
cult to see just how he is 10 be punished in
case he still refuses to answer The question,
as he probably will.