The San Francisco call., 1896-04-19

up. The head of the cane was shown as
the one Martin showed to the conductor.
Murray had said it was a gold headed
cane, but why was he not put upon the
stand to swear it was not the cane? The
fact remains that Martin had shown a
gold-headed cane. The cane was presented
to him by the Orange-growers' Packing
Company; he valued it, and it shows that
it has been often used. In his condition
Martin evidently used it great deal, and
it is beyond a doubt that he had it with
him at the time. The man who was be-
hind Martin said he had seen Martin
show cane to the conductor.
us 1T possible he would have done so had
he wished to prove TO the conductor that
he was not George N. Martin? Would he
have shown the names on his letters and
cards, his match-safe, etc., if he did not
want TO prove that he was George N. Mar
tin? He said he showed his watch; Murray
says to the best of his knowledge Martin
did not do SO. Simmonds says he thinks
Martin did. He did not see the watch,
but he saw Martin put his hand to the
pocket in which watch is usually car
RED; he drew something from his pocket
ana showed it to the conductor and the
conductor leaned forward to look at it and
he stretched out his hand and turned it
over.
1t Is admitted that he begged the con-
ductor to carry him to Truckee, where
there were persons living who could
identify him. And would he have done
this had his purpose been to prove to the
conductor that he was not George N. Mar
tin? In view of all these circumstances
does it appear that plaintiff had himself
purposely put off the train? I submit
that he did not.
Then did the defendants believe that
Martin committed fraud? If so why did
they offer to return his ticket to him and
recompense him for the time he lost by
being put off the train and give him a
Pullman berth? And all this when the
Inconvenience he was subjected to was,
according to them, only the Illustration of
his own dis shonest plans2
The only construction to be put upon il
is that they believe Mr.. Martin was not
fraud, was not a cheat, that he was enti-
tied to legal compensation, but that it
should deplete the treasury of the railroad
as little as possible.
"If you believe" continued Mr.. Delmas.
the train, then your further detention by
argument is worse than idle But, assum-
ing that l have proved that Martin was
wrongfully put off the train, I can go on
and show what followed as consequence"
Mr.. Delmas then took up the events which
followed Immediately after the election of
Martin from the train.
1t was reasoned that there had been
commotion when Martin was put off. At
tentlon was called to the fact that Martin
did not take with him his satchel and
overcoat, and that the conductor did not
do so either. They were carried out by
the brakeman. because the hands of both
the conductor and of Martin were other
wise engaged. Then, too, the brakeman
had been called in; and what was the rea-
son for sending for him if Martin was
going to leave the train as quietly as the
defense had said he did? Martin says he
was violently pulled from his seat and was
bundled out of the car, and this testimony
was corroborated by that of Mr.. Tracy, a
passenger who saw it all.
The statements of Collins, the brake
man, were next considered. Collins had
said he was not present at all when Martin
was elected. To offset this testimony was
the evidence given by Martin, by several of
the passengers, and of Weston, the con.
ductor, all of whom swore that the brake
man was there. The easiest way to dis
prove that Martin had been roughly ham
died. counsel continued, was to prove that
Collins was not there at all, and that Wes-
ton put Martin out alone; but counsel
believed, when this was attempted by
HA1l ~ c{a4 - L
the defense had overshot the mark.
The medical testimony then came under
comment. Martins first ailment, thermal
ataxia, was described as one brought on by
sudden and great changes of temperature.
but its change to locomotor ataxia was due
to violence, to wrench, and that this was
done when the man was being cast from
the train.
The charge of Judge DaingerfieId was
delivered and the jury retired.
General Barnes had suggested the day
before that the case be submitted to the
jury without argument. In his opening
address Mr.. Delmas made reply to this
suggestion as follows, taking the occasion
to paw glowing tribute 10 General Barnes
son, District Attorney Barnes. He said:
Was 1t not the universal sentiment of the bar
that the only hope of escape for the arch-fend
who year ago startled us with the double
murder of the two innocent girls in Emmanuel
Church lay in submitting his case to the jury
without argument? Did not every experienced
lawyer appreciate that, owing to the length of
the trial, the number of witnesses examined
the variety of subjects touched upon and the
exhaustiveness of the Investigations made
there was chance that the fallible memory of
jurors might overlook some essential fact or
their unassisted mind fail to perceive its i'm
portauce? Was not the reed upon which the
defense leaned broken by the argument of the
District Attorney II that argument which
whil pointing out with the finger of unerring
reason every circumstance bearing upon the
prisoners guilt and demonstrating with un-
assailable logic its relation to the case clothed
the orators thoughts with that wealth and
splendor of marvellous eloquence which awak-
ened in our City the profoundest sentiments
of pride and dadmiration-that argument which.
while 1t filled Nation with wonder, was ac-
cepted by all as the greatest which human ears