The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1895-01-06
DENIES MANY STATEMENTS
Concerning What Happened in
the Restaurant.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT THERE.
Witness Also Disputes What Has
Been Said About Food Served
on July IL.

WOODLAND, Jan. 5.-The prosecution
did not get in all the testimony in reDutta
today in the Appelmsn case as was ex-
pected.
There are some people who have never
missed day since the trial began. Rain
or shine they are always in the courtroom
when the court is called to order and they
never leave until an adjournment. These
people are sympathizers with the strikers.
M. j. Riley, who is one of the strikers.
was the first witness called this morning.
He testified that Appelman, himself and
several others went to Gait on handcar
on July the Sd, and did not get back until
O'Clock Witness saw Appelman in the
a. r. U. kitchen on the 18th OF July. be-
tween the hours of and g.
William Bodfer was called, but did not
answer.
The mother and father of defendant
were put on the stand TO prove that there
is such man as j. B. King They had
received letters from Needles signed by
that name. The defense rested
Sheriff Parker and his deputy of Modoc
were put on the stand in rebutial. They
contraGicted the defendant in many par
ticulars. Appelman told them that he
knocked Marshal Baldwin down and took
his pistol away from him. They got the
impression from his talk that he Is a
''blowhard."
o. E. Nash, n. Bresslauer. c. F. and j.
F. Hume were called to testify to the repu-
tation of Robert Radcliffe. They all testi-
fed that his reputation for honesty and
integrity is good. and that nothing what
ever could be said against him.
Mrs. Annie Mcclure of Sacramento tes-
tilted that she was in charge of the
kitchen of the A. r. U. during the strike.
Up to the dav of the wreck the eating
house was situated near the depot, but on
that day it was removed to K street. She
denied having any pies in the restaurant
on the day Of the wreck, and stated that
only on one or two occasions were there
any pies in the restaurant at all. She did
not see the defendant in the restaurant at
any time on the 18th of July.
Now, Mrs. Mcclure" said Mr.. Cook.
'if the defendant had been in the restau-
rant eating pies or washing dishes with
Mrs. Stokes would you have seen him.
81 think should" she replied.
Witness said she visited Appelman in
the Jail in company with Mrs. Matheney.
and that on the occasion of that visit Mrs.
Matbeney called witness by name and
said. What did you do it for?" Upon
Appelman denying doing anything she
said, "You did. too"
Knox was in the jail at the time. and
when it was suggested that Mrs. Matheney
be introduced to him she said, No; he is
the man who got you into trouble"
Mrs. Mcclure said that there had been
an attempt made by Judge Bright TO pre-
vent her from coming as witness for the
prosecution. This was on New Years
day. and at the time Judge Bright came to
see her he was in company with John
Appelman, brother of the defendant. Wit
ness said that if she went over as a wilt
ness she was going to tell the truth. One
of the witnesses in the Hatch trial for the
defense told Mrs. McClFe that he would
swear to lie any time to get friend out
of trouble. Mrs. Bailey, in conversing
with the witness at one time, said that she
would swear to lie to clear any one.
Cross-examination developed nothing of
Importance, and all Mr.. Gaddis' efforts to
puzzle the witness proved futile.
In the course of the examination wit
ness said that when Judge Bright came up
to her and attemp ted to keep her from
coming here as witness. she was so badly
frightened that she was afraid to 60 home
that night. The Judge said to her at that
time. pointing his finger at her: "If You 90
over there as witness. I'll come over and
do you up" or words to that effect.
did you not tell Mrs Matheny that you
would come over and testify in this case
even il you had no subp ena?" questioned
Mr.. Gaddis.
Eyes, sir. / said that would come with
out subpoena if l had anything to testify
In his favor"
AT the close of the examination Of this
witness. the court asked the ATTORNEYS if
they could arrange it so as not to have
court Monday. General Hart thought If
it could be so arranged, It would be better
to have session Monday afternoon. which
would finish up the witnesses and thew
would be ready to begin the arguments on
Tuesday. Court thought 1t could be so
arranged and adjourned at 2:30 until 80
p. NJ. Monday.
|