The morning call., 1895-01-31

not ask to stay in San Francisco. His un-
successful search in the cities of the East
and the stock ranges of Colorado and Ne
braska for employment was told of. Al
though not hopelessly addicted to liquor,
he took the Keely cure to please his father.
A letter from McCreedy, Mo-, dated No
vember Is, 1891, was to the effect that a
year had now passed since he had begun
the Kelly treatment, and he had never
taken drop or had IKE least desire for
liquor since. He was determined to lead
an upright life.
At this point Attorney E. S. Pillsbury
who had before been disturbing influence
in the case, made his appearance in the
courtroom. He was accompanied by his
partner, Judge Hayne, who represented
that himself and client had come to San
Jose III response to a summons at great
personal sacrifice to themselves. A cross
examination of Witness Pillsbury was be-
gun by Delmas. The witness stated that
his professional relations with Edward
Barron had begun in 1885.
What were the first business transac-
tons? What was their subject?" was
asked.
Hayne, in behalf of the witness, objected
to this question on the ground that matters
relating to a privileged communication
were sought to be brought out.
" We want it understood, said Mr.. Del
mas, 6 that we do not object to any testi-
mony that the witness may give; we want
him to tell all he knows. Why should he
come here and dam up the stream of in
formation? Let it flow freely. We know
that Mr.. Pillsbury has been employed upon
the other side, for retaining fee of $500
was paid to him on December 31st, but we
do not object to having him tell here and
now anything he may know or thinks he
knows upon that subject"
Judge Lorrigan sustained the objection
to the question upon the ground that it
called for privileged communication.
" Are you an attorney of Mrs. Eva Rose
Barron?" asked Delmas.
=" [ am her attorney" was the reply, " in
the defense of the application that was
filed in this court for partial distribution
OF the estate"
Have you any papers that belonged to
Edward Barron?"
Hayne objected to this question as seek
ing to obtain information upon privileged
communication.
"Can it be possible" said Mr.. Delmas,
"that after man dies no court can get at
documents that he may have left in the
hands of an attorney? Supposing it should
appear that Mr.. Pillsbury has a former
will of Mr.. Barron, are even debarred from
inquiring as to its existence?'
AT this point the witness exhibited much
nervousness. He informed Judge Lorigan
that it was necessary for him to return to
San Francisco on the o'clock train, and
start East in the morning.
81 cannot excuse you, said the court.
1T is no fault Of mine," said Delmas. 81
am here to protect the interest of my
client, and shall do so; I care not who
svffers for it. 1t is not my fault that Mr..
Pillsbury was called here at the eleventh
hour. Twice we attempted to get his testi-
mony by deposition. If he will agree TO
return before the close of the trial am
willing that he should 60" The witness
would not agree to return.
"In 1890 was will drawn up for you by
Edward Barron?" asked Mr.. Delmas.
eyes, SIR
"Who were the witnesses?" "F. D.
Madison ana myself.
"Was it in duplicated" at was, 1 kept
one copy and Mr.. Barron took the other
away with him. I returned my copy to
Mr.. Barron when he executed a second
will, and have not seen it since"
Mrs. Barron was called to the stand by
Mr.. Delmas, and testified that she had
not found any duplicate of the will of 1890.
Pillsbury then resumed the witness-stand,
and he was asked as to the provisions of
the will of 1880. Pillsbury then resumed
the witness-stand, and he was asked as to
the will of 1890. Attorney Hayne again
objected.
II will answer that question if you will
let me go to catch my train" exclaimed
the witness excitedly, as he jumped to his
feet and glared at the clock. The irrepres-
sible Hayne jumped to his feet. 81 think
Mr.. Pillsbury must be joking" he said.
THAT Is true. forgot that my alto rney
had objected in my behalf 1 withdraw
my consent to answer that question"
GAS he was a subscriber to the document
I think he can answer the question, said
Judge Lorigan. The agony was then
over The witness testified that the will
of 1890 was exactly the same as the one
now being contested, except that the first
will gave William R. Barron $500
while in the second viii he was given
100000. The witness then stated that he
had based his opinion that Edward Barron
was of sound mind upon his observation
of the testator's business capacity ond
memory. This closed the cross-examina-
ton and tha court adiOurned