The herald., 1896-02-06
not intend to degrade the case by doing SO

not intend to degrade the case by doing SO
themselves.
Mrs. Fannie listened to the generals
argument with flashing eyes, and when the
:curt held that the question was not reIe'
mt she appeared to be very angry.
Touching upon this question as to what
Edward E. g relations were with the plain
tiff, the evidence in The lower court was
shown by the testimony of Edward E. HIM
self. who was asked these questions:
'Has your conduct toward her Mrs.
Fannie) been that of an honorable gentle.
man toward his brothers. wife?"
Alt was.''
"Never made any advances of any kind
toward herr"
A.-"Nothing at ail.'
On redirect examination Mrs. Holiday
denied that she went to the Holiday man
sion like a whirlwind. and she further
gave the jury to understand that she did
not throw her arms around the neck Of
Edward F.
In tones that would cause Laplander to
SILVER, Mrs. Fannie denied that she was
infatuated with her brother-in-law. She
also said that she had not told Detective
Oliver when he was taking her home in a
hack after her wild night with her breezy
brother-in-law that what she had done in
the way of mashing furniture was not a
marker to what she would do.
When the question was asked Mrs. Fan
ME l.. as to what her relations with Ed.
ward E. had been, Attorney Hunsacker ex-
planned to the court that defendants pro.
posed to show that the whole case was one
of blackmail.
General Campbell said that he thought
it was bad taste for one of the defendants
to endeavor to shield himself by bruiting
his own shame.
General Jones denied in most emphatic
language that there was any blackmail
about the case.
Attorney Hunsacker said that the ques
tion was relevant and proper cross exami
nation, as plaintiffs counsel had brought
out that Mrs. Fannie was not infatuated
with Edward F. and now he proposed tc
show for the defense that while going home
in the hack with Oliver the plaintiff had
told the detective that Edward f. had got
her in family way and that she proposed
to have satisfaction out of him.
Despite all of this the court ruled the
question out. There was some further
sparring and then Mrs. Holiday left the
stand having been on for three days. She
made an excellent witness and stood the
ordeal we'll.
The defendants counsel, at the after
noon session,presented motion for non
suit. The jury was excused until 10 a. m.
"Bug," were also excused. Their condition
was such as TO make it impossible for them
to remain in the court room.
All the afternoon Mr.. Hunsacker and
Mr.. Lucas addressed the court upon their
motion. A mountain of authorities was
presented, tending to show that the defend
ants were not liable for any misfortunes
Fannie G. suffered as result of her inn
prisonment.
In their argument for the plaintiff
Messrs. Jones and Campbell made the
point that the second arrest of Mrs. Holli-
day was in violation of law. She was first
arrested on August 10th and discharged on
August 27th upon O writ of habeas corpus,
after argument before Judge Smith. With
in three hours afterward, on the same day,
she was arrested on the second warrant for
the same cause as the first. Gen. Jones
called the attention of the court to section
1496 of the penal code, which provides
that party that has been discharged upon
a writ of habeas corpus cannot be re-
arrested for the same cause, except in the
case of ''crininal charge" or "a criminal
case" and also pointed out that section
1868 of the penal code makes 1t q misde-
meanor for any person or member of the
court to re-arrest q person after the dis
charge on habeaS corpus, for the same
cause. Both attorneys sustained their ar
gument with authorities, and made plea
for the court to uphold the right of citi-
zen to be protected against unlawful i'm
prisonment. They argued that the Holli-
day case was of grave Importance, not only
to the plaintiff, but to every citizen, as 1t
involved the right of personal liberty.
The court took the motion for non-suit
under advisement.