The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-01-05

Gallagher-Did not the defendant on the oc-
casion last mentioned, August, 1895, ask you
II you still cherished the old unlawful love for
Miss Overman? And did you not reply: az do
not wish to have anything more TO do with
her, and that she may not have any reason to
her?'
Objection on the same ground. Same
ruling.
Did you not call in the month of December,
1895, and remain a the defendants house and
remain with Miss Overman and the defendant
two hours. and when you were leaving did you
not hand Miss Oyermen $50 in the presence of
defendant?
Objection on the same ground. Same
ruling.
Did you visit Syracuse within the last year,
Brown did.
When did you return?
l think 1 arrived here on the 9TH of Novem-
Der, 1895.
Soon after yonr return from Syracuse did you
call on defendant and hand her $35 for Miss
Overman?
Objection on the same ground. Same
ruling.
Was Deacon Morse present at any of the
meetings at the church?
Objection on the same ground. Same
ruling.
At the time when have asked when Deacon
Morse was present, did Deacon Kerr come into
the same room?
Same objection. Same ruling.
Did you have any conversation with this de-
PENDANT on the 10th Of November when either
Deacon Kerr or Deacon Morse was present?
Same objection. Same ruling
Did you not at one of those meetings on the
21st or 22d OF November, 1895, make a con-
fession to this defendant that you had fur
nished some medlcine-ergot-to Miss Over
man to effect a certain purpose?
Same objection. Same ruling.
Did You at any other time make q confession
to Mrs. Davidson that you had furnished ergot
TO Miss Overman for this certain purpose?
At this point the witness began to show
signs of deep and suppressed passion and
was about to make vehe nent reply when
he was stopped, and ever alert and always
calm Mr.. Lloyd made the usual objection.
Attorney Guilfoyle then argued the ad-
instability of this question as follows:
We offer this evidence for this reason: II it
be true and he did give this woman ergot he
was guilty OF a felony, and ii he entered into
negotiations with this woman he was guilty
with this woman. If we can prove this there
must be more corroborative' evidence to sus-
tain this charge against this defendant. We
wish 10 prove that this state OF affairs did
exist; that defendant and Brown entered into
a conspiracy TO keep from a magistrate the
commission OF felony, and that he is an ac-
cessury TO the fact. We contend that both par
ties were consplra tors to this extent that they
conspired 10 keep the facts from the ears of a
magistrate.
Objection sustained.
Gallagher-Did not the defendant speak to
you OF the enormity OF the crime OF giving
ergot 10 the woman?
Same objection. Same ruling.
Gallagher-Did you not say, "My wife takes
ergot for this purpose?"
This was the last straw, and the passion
of the witness burst its bounds He
writhed in his seat for second or two
and then blurted out in tones of deepest
anger and indignation: "Y on are an in
famous man." And with these words he
parently, 10 making an attack on the Of
tending attorney. He was checked, how
ever, by his watchful attorney.
But his denunciatory remark was not
ignored by Mr.. Gallagher, who made a
prompt and almost equally passionate re-
ply, as follows:
am not SO infamous as you are. If were
would drown myself. L am not like YOU try
ing to shield myself behind the law
Lloyd-The witness should not be blamed.
l would knock any man down who made any
reference TO my wife as was made to that ofthe
witness.
Gallagher-He should answer my questions
Ike a man-an innocent man-and a
preacher should.
Lloyd-Counsel has no right 70 insult the
witness under the guise of keeping the record
true.
Gallagher-My client told me these are facts
and believe her. No one can run a bluff on
me. 10 witness)-Dd defendant tell YOU that
Miss Overman complained to her tn at the medi-
cine you gave her had made her sick?
Same objection. Same ruling
Did You these words to the defend
ant: 81 am not such bad man, and love
Matte, and will do right by her, but don't
wish to have her around me any more. In
fact, she must not come TO my Office as she did
last week. Mr.. Pike may tell things"
Same objection. Same ruling.
Did defendant call at your Office on any Sum
day in December?
Same objection. Same ruling.
Did defendant call at your Office on any Sat-
urday in December, and did you say to defend
ant: "God will keep me now. l put myself
wholly in his hands,?
Same objection. Same ruling.
And in the same conversation did you not
say: 81 will continue to pay Miss Overman $35
month, for have wronged her, but keep this
secret for me-?
Same objection. Same ruling. Excep-
ton noted
want to ask where it was the defendant
first spoke TO you OF threat made by any body
to expose you?
Same objection Same ruling.
Did you have a conversation with this de-
fendant few days before the 21st of Novem-
Der, when there were no persons present but
yourself and her, about a woman who she told
you haG made q Threat to expose you?
Same objection. Same ruling.
Prior to November 81 did You have any con-
versatlon with defendant at all regarding the
woman who had threatened to expose him,
Mrs. Baddin.
Objection sustained.
At any time in conversation with defendant