The San Francisco call., 1896-03-26

preliminary questions ne tOucneQ tne VITAL
point in the case, namely, whether DR..
Brown had paid the $500 to Mrs. Davidson
through fear of the consequences OF a re-
fusal, or whether he paid it in order to as
certain the name and identity of the
lodging house keeper who had threatened
him with exposure.
If he had paid the money through fear
and the jury had believed him Mrs. Da-
wilson would have a hard battle before
purpose of ascertaining the identity OF
Mrs. Jane Eliza beth Baddin the charge of
extortion would fall to the ground.
when you were told that criminal
secret of yours would be exposed, you
knew that there was nothing In your life
to conceal?" asked the attorney.
YES" was the reply.
s'Mrs. Davidson did not threaten to pub
lish the story ?"
"No, sir. She said that she was acting
as agent for the lodging house keeper"
'.You were conscious of your own inno-
cence before you took this receipt, and you
paid the money, not because you had a
guilty secret but because you wished to as
certain who the guilty parties were and tc
punish them?' -.
"4es, sir; that was what was in my mind
at that time"
That's alI;i have no further questions
to ask the witness"
This announcement caused buzz of
surprise among the spectators, the great
majority of whom did not understand or
fully appreciate the point involved.
Judge Bahrs at this stage of the proceed
ings projected himself into the case. Not
withstanding tie repeated objections of
the attorney for the defendant he piled DR..
Brown with questions with the evident OBJ
iect of having him reply that he was also
governed by fear when he paid the $500 to
the elegant old lady in the costly Spanish
mantllla.
"Your motive" asked Judge Bahrs, "in
taking the receipt was TO secure evidence.
What was your motive in paying the
money!
"At first, replied DR.. Brown, "the whole
matter overwhelmed me, but afterward
the happy thought struck me that 1T would
be well worth $500 to get a receipt and as
certain the identity of the lodging-house
keeper. 1t would be tangible evidence
against her,"
Judge Bahrs.
The question was objected to on the
ground that it was leading.
sit is not leading" decided Judge Bahrs,
sharply. ''He can tell what the other mo-
tives were. If DIR. Brown is satisfied to let
that answer stand it will have to stand"
81 don't think" said DR.. Brown, "that
in my mind. 1 thought then and L think
still-and l cannot see the meaning of all
this dispute here-that it would be very
happy thought to get receipt"
Judge Bahrs put another question with
the same object in view Finally Dr.
Brown said: Judge Bahrs, l must be
honest and I must tell the whole truth
here. On my way from the bank from
which had secured the money! had
feeling of great hope that Mrs. Davidson
would give me a receipt in which the name
OF that woman would be mentioned. /
had feeling in that event that / would be
positively in possession of something
which would be of value at this hour"
For what?" asked Judge Bahrs quickly.
"For evidence on the charge of extor-
tion," was the reply.
.You paid the money" continued Judge
Bahrs, because you were in fear of the
publication of this storyP'
: "Yes,' replied the doctor.
I ''At that timer" inquired Mrs. David
sons lawyer. "At the time of the pay
ment of the money!"
ayes; at that time ?' also asked Judge
Bahrs.
DR.. Brown replied in the affirmative.
7 More questions were put in the same
strain, and more objections were raised.
Finally, DR.. Brown, in answer to ques
ton by Mr.. Cook, said: 81 think that in
strict honesty may say that my main
motive was to secure evidence"
"You say the main motive" interrupted
Judge Bahrs. t'Was there any other mo-
DR.. Brown explained that at first e had
been willing to do anything in his power
to stop the publication of the story, and
he felt that he would gladly pay $500 to
secure the evidence that would punish the
guilty person.
l. III III
talk is about here. [ don't think | did
anything wrong to try to get evidence"
That's all right, DOCTOR" said Judge
Bahrs. pleasantly. ''You can't see it, per-
haps, but others can."
The Judge proceeded to remark that he
was not sure that the doctor meant ex-
actly what he said.
This raised a laugh, and the court threat
ened to clear out the visitors in the gal
lery If the distur bance should be repeated.
The attendants attorney continued to
protest against the questions put by the
court. The fact that he was the Judge of
the court and was asking leading ques-
tons might induce the witness to believe
that it would be his duty to answer in the
way in which the Judge appeared to want
them answered, Mr.. Knight suggested.
Finally, after crossfre of questions and
objections, DR.. Brown said: II don't think
/ would have paid the money but for the
thought that came to me that night to Sc
cure evidence against the guilty parties
"You would never have PAID her dol
lar" asked the defendants attorney, 'un-
less you were positive You could convict
somebody"
"The moment that thought came to me,
as | stood on Mrs. Davidson's doorstep"
replied Dr. Brown, II resolved to pay the
$500"
Suppose she had refused to give you
the name of the lodging -house-keeper,
would you have paid it?''
II would never have paid dollar with
out the name" was the positive answer Of
the witness.
This answer created an apparent con-
fusion among the counsel for the prosecu-
ton. Carroll Cook, with beamimg
smile, suggested that DR.. Brown didn't
understand the technicalities of the law.
The doctor was excused from testifying
any further, and after Detective Seymour
had rold of the result of his invesgation,
Mrs. Davidson's attorney moved that the
court instruct the jury to acouit the defend
ant on the ground that the prosecution
had failed to show that the money was
paid to Mrs. Davidson through fear. He
quoted several cases in point.
Judge Bahrs thought that the jury
should decide whether DR.. Brown had tes-