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

mentioned; that Mrs. Baddin told her: az
keep a lodging-house and you are church
member You don't know as much about
preachers as I do" She then told her she saw
DR.. Brown go to the clearinghouse with lady
and some few days after Mrs. Baddin called
again and told Mrs. Davidson that the lady she
saw with DR.. Brown was lady stopping in ner
(Mrs. Dayidson's) house. Mrs. Davidson said
the lady was Miss Oyerman.
Lloyd-That is all.
The cross-examination of the witness
was then begun by Attorney Gallagher as
follows:
She told you the intent with which she got
the money for Mrs. Baddin, and she told you
the doctor gave it TO her for Mrs. Baddin?
Seymour-Yes, sir There was something
else would like to state.
Gallagher am not asking for It,
Loyd-Anything further that you recollect?
Seymour had the receipt and showed it to
Mrs Davidson Ed asked her If she ever saw
That paper Deiet. She said she had, and said
! ii was hers s.,e wrote it in Dr. Browns study
at the dictaticn of DR.. Brown at the time she
received the money from DR.. Brown
Gailagher-That is all, Mr.. Seymour.
Lloyd-That Is the case for the prosecution
The court-Does the prosecution rest?
LlOyd-Yes, sir.
Gallagher--H your Honor please, 1 desire
now TO make motion to dismiss the charge
against the defendant on the ground
The COURT want to ask DR.. Brown ques-
ton or two more.
Iloyd-Doctor, take the stand.
When the prosecuting witness resumed
his place on the stand Judge Campbell
asked:
At the meeting in your Office on the 21st and
ga OF November what was the manner of the
defendant in addressing your State whether
or not she was pleasant or what her manner
! was.
Gallagher-Objectiou on the ground it is
! calling tor a conclusion.
The court-Witness may state how defendant
! acted
Brown-When she first came into my Office
! at ) o'clock on the 21st her manner was pleas
! ant for little time until | proceeded TO read
! the paper and told her it was no use TO go
further. Then it became menacing until we'll
| nlgh the close OF the conversation, and she
/ was also excited.
Gallagher-If your Honor does not wish to
/ pass on my motion am willing to go on.
! The court want to get little more infor-
malon. want TO find out whether there was
/ an actual eXtortion committed, and 10 find out
/ II there was anything new addressing the
! Wltness) on the ODD.
Galleg her-Objection 1t would be an opinion
/ only-a conclusion.
! The court-Objection overruled.
! Brown-When Mrs. Davidson had given me
! the document was absolutely ignorant of the
name OF the lodging house keeper.
Gallagher-We still desire to have fuller
/ crosS-eXamination.
The court-The witness has not vet answered
| my last question.
Brown-She appeared to be angry.
Decentralization. 1t is an opinion of
| the witness
The COURT deny the motion to dismiss.
Gallagher desire again ct this stage of the
! proceedings TO ask your honor to dismiss the
] charge against the defendant First, that it
does not appear here that this defendant is
! guilty of the particular act charged. 1t does
not appear here that she levied eXtortion upon
/ the doctor. They nave failed TO prove that the
/ object for which she claimed she had received
! this money was not true. If there was any
presumption of law to be drawn the
! existence OF Mrs. Baddin must be admitted.
/ They have failed to show that Mrs.
Baddiu did not get the money, and the pre-
! sumption is that Mrs. Baddin did get the
money. ii defendant got the money from the
/ doctor for Mrs. Baddin that would not be
called eXtOrtion, and if she did not get it for
! Mrs. Raddn it would be getting money under
/ false pretenses. l must assume that the testi-
/ mony given here is true, and there is no evil
deuce here to contradict Mrs. DayidSon's story,
! that she went to the doctor for any other pur-
pose than 10 assist him in protecting himself
/ from the scandal that would result from the
publication of this story, and not for the pur-
/ pose of leyyipg blackmail as one of con-
spiracy. Then she is not guilty OF this crime.
Mrs. Baddln is the only one who can contra
diet defendant that size got the money for Mrs.
Baddin. The prosecution must prove the guilt
/ OF the defendant beyond doubt. They mus /
I show that no such person Mrs. Baddin eX-
4 lists. 1t is not necessary for the defend
ant 10 prove that she does exist. The
burden OF proof rests the prose-
/ cutiOn. The proposition is: First has
/ the crime OF extortion been committed ?
/ We claim that there is nothing in the evidence
( 10 show that the crime of extortion WAS
! committed, but that this money was obtained,