The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1895-01-30

morning session was the argument on the
admission of the testimony of the house
keeper of Edward Barron. This was to
show Mrs. Barron's disdain for everything
at all plebeian In his argument Mr.. Del
mas hrnueht forth the fact that she de-
clined to sit at the same table with P, j.
Sullivan because he was her husbands
agent and that she was in all respects the
haughtiest of Irish aristocrats and de-
scendants of the Irish kings.
The next sensation was when Mr.. Pills
bury was placed on the stand by the de-
fendant's counsel, and his testimony was
objected to on the ground that he had
been the confidential agent and attorney
of the deceased. Mr.. Delmas was most
eloquent in his definition of the secret re-
lations that exist between counsel and
client, and that even death should not re-
move that seal, and when the court re-
lieved Mr.. Pillsbury from the necessity OF
testifying in regard to the drawing of Ed
ward Barron's will Mr.. Pillsbury smiled
contentedly.
The reading of the deposition of J. E.
Walsh of San Rafael was concluded. He
testified that after his marriage to the
third Mrs. Barron the husband was no
longer proud of his humble early career OF
hard work, when he laid the foundation OF
his fortune of millions. His proud wife
tabooed the subject of toll.
The deposition of Annie Hendy was to
the effect that she had served the Barrons
as housekeeper from 1878 to 1892 Mrs.
Barron objected to eating at the same table
with P. ]. Sullivan, the old-time friend and
business ss-manager of her husband. She
called tradespeople riffraff and peasants.
At the opening of the session of the
court in the afternoon Mr.. Lieb asked the
privilege Of introducing a witness for the
proponent, E. S. Pillsbury, and said the
witness, who is a practicing attorney in
San Jose, was called to ST. Louis on legal
business in connection with trial that is
in progress. He is to leave San Francisco
next Thursday and could not return until
February u. The introduction of the tes-
timony was opposed by Delmas at that
time and the court directed the reading of
the deposition of Annie Hendy to pro-
ceed.
On cross-examination by Judge CARRIER
she stated that she went into the employ
OF MI. DdIIOu dC q uOQcChCCpCls Al IQdL
time the house at Mayfield was being re-
paired and he was the only one at the
place besides the housekeeper and the men
on the grounds. This concluded the depo-
sition.
E. S. Pillsbury was then called to the
stand. Mr.. Delmas renewed his objections
to the introduction of his testimony out of
order, and on his motion Judge Lorigan
ruled that the special reasons why the evil
dence of Mr.. Pillsbury could not be taken
with the rest of the evidence for the pro-
ponent would have to be presented to the
court in an affidavit While Leib was pre-
pairing this paper, the deposition of Mary
Burns was read.
She deposed that she was employed as a
domestic in the Barron household in Janu-
ary, 1892. The witness was at the house
at 1921 Sutter street in which Mr.. Barron
died. There a few days before his death
she heard a conversation between Mrs.
Barron and her eldest son Mark. The con-
versation took place in the children's bed
room. The child said, "Mother, why don't
brother George come homer" The reply
of Mrs. Barron was: "He is not my child,
and | will have nothing to do with him"
Mr.. Delmas asked George Barron to take
the stand. The counsel on the other side.
however, insisted on again forcing Witness
Pillsbury upon the attention of the court.
II contend" said Mr.. Delmas at this
point, "that the other side has no right to
introduce their testimony to mar and, in a
measure, destroy the logical and orderly
unfolding of the case of the contestant.
Twice we attempted to secure the deposit
ton of this witness, and now it seems he
comes here voluntarily to give testimony