The San Francisco call., 1896-01-10

Louderback, whose face showed deep dis
gust tlnged with the bitterness of defeat,
but after short pause he returned to the
attack with renewed determination:
"Do you know an officer of the State of Mas
sachusetts by the name of Shaw of LYNN
county OF Essex?"
'I have no knowledge of such man, SIR
well, did man by the name of Shaw ever
arrest you for any offense?"
The court-You cannot impeach witness in
that way.
Gallagher-You got her answer and YOU are
bound by it.
Louderback-We do not have to believe her
answer.
In the course of the discussion which
followed Mr.. LOuderback said to the lead
ing attorney of the defense:
"You don't know her (defendant) yourself.
When you know little more of her past his
tory you may then know little about her"
Gallagher (resuming his argument)-These
people have no right TO get this witness to
identify herself.
The court-They can impeach this witness
by showing she was convicted of felony.
Louderoack-Were you ever arrested in the
county of Essex?
An objection to this was sustained.
did you ever serve term In jail in the
county of Essex?"
An objection was sustained.
"Did you ever go by the name OF Abbott?"
Have you ever been called or known by the
name of Abbott?"
Gas my surname, sir? My middle name is
Abbott. But have never been called Mrs. ABB
bott"
"since you have been married have YOU ever
been known as Mrs. Abbott?"
mo, sir"
Have you ever been known as Mary P.
Sturgis?"
81 know nothing of it, sir''
DO you mean to say that you do not know
whether or not you have gone by that name?"
"No, sir"
Were you ever called by others by that
name-Mary P Sturgis?"
An objection was interposed.
Louderback Ito the court She has given
most remarkable testimony when she says she
does not know whether or not she ever was
called by the name of Sturgis.
The court Ito the witness)-Were You ever
called by that name by people generally? Did
you ever answer 10 that name?
Witness-No, SIR
Louderback = Have you any knowledge
yourself?
Gallagher objected and while he was
stating his ground Mr.. Louderback en-
deavored to induce witness to answer. This
preclpitated short, but hot tilt between
counsel, Gallagher charging his opponent
with unfairness, and Louderback was
forced to desist.
UdIlagner claimed that the line of Ques-
tonlng was not proper cross-examination,
anu that the witness could only be i'm
peached by eontTadicting her testimony on
direct examination or by showing a con-
vlctlon OF felony.
Lloyd Uaklng up the eargument)-The witness
testlned 10 her good character. She opened the
quesuon OF her character herself, and it is le-
gitlmate cross-examination to show her bad
charaeter. 1t is our right to show she has led
a ulSreputable life. That is a very i'm portant
element. Upon any question of doubt charac-
ter must De considered. She has undertaken to
raise le Snleld of good character for her protec-
tlon This shield the law gives her. 1t presumes
ner chaeacter TO be good unless otherwise
SHOWN, Dutshe has endeavoTed to show us upon
ner own testimony that her character is good.
we want TO show that her shield is rotten,
rusty and full of holes She tried to impress
your honor with her patriotism in caring for
the wounded during the war and with her
moral ana Christian attributes in teaching
Sunday-School We will show that she is q
slmuiator Had she kept her lips sealed we
coulo not break through her shield.
Ihe court-I have very high regard for your
statement as to all that, but | cannot fix it in
my mlnd that you are right.
There was some further argument on the
matter and Judge Campbell finally decided
the prosecution had the right to go into
the character of the defendant and for this
purpose could traverse her whole life.
In the course of his argument, Attorney
gallagher, In response to questions from
the bench, stated that certain matters
when he had brought out and which the
court evidently thought bore on the ques-
ton OF character was immaterial, saying
that the other side was asleep. This raised
laugh on all sides. Which side the