The San Francisco call., 1896-03-24

the case; it is no church law which will
be applied to objections and demurrers
There is no judge advocate-each side
must run its own case-and there will be
no addresses to the court by the prose
cutting witness; he must speak through
his counsel or testify under CATH
There is no lack of counsel in the case
before Judge Bahrs, but it is not evenly
distributed. There are three lawyers
prosecuting the extortion charge against
Mrs. Davidson; there is but one defending
her. Carroll Cook, Davis Louderback
both special counsel, and Walter Hinkle,
Assistant District Attorney, arranged
themselves in row along the prosecutor s
table. behind Cook was DR.. Brown.
behind Louderback was Mrs. Brown, be-
hind Hinkle was Vaily Brown, and to the
side was Detective Seymour. Knight and
Mrs. Davidson sat by themselves.
The defendant was as calm and placid as
she has been all through the trial. She
still wore the little bonnet with purple
violets and the white veil, which became
so familiar during the Police Court exam
ination, and she appeared much less dis
turbed over the situation than did the
contingent which formed the group for the
prosecution.
DIR. Brown took more than a passive
interest in the proceedings. He leaned
forward frequently and spoke to Cook, and
at every whispered council of the attorneys
he drew his chair forward and joined in.
Mrs. Brown, Valley and Detective Sey-
mouf were silent spectators all through
the day. They had, really, but little to
listen to, for the day dragged along under
the examination of jurors. The proceed
ings opened, however, with motion by
Mr. Knight for a continuance.
He said his most important Witnesses
Miss Overman, Mrs. Tunnel and Mrs.
Baddin-were not present, and it would
seriously embarrass his case If he were
compelled to proceed without them. He
said he had asked the police to subpoena
the witnesses named while they were still
in this State, but that now they are in En-
senada, in Lower California. Knight said
he had had affidavits prepared, but they
had not yet arrived in court. so, if allowed,
he would dictate statement to the court
reporter, and he would swear TO that as an
affidavit. This permission being granted,
knight dictated as follows:
George A. Knight, being sworn, deposes and
saws that on the I'd day OF March, 1886, he
caused subpenas to be taken out for the ap-
psarance at this trial of DR.. c. o. Brown, Mrs
W. J. Tunnel and Miss Matte Overman. That
he. George A. Knight, went with the subpenas
to the Chief of Police and requested him to
have them served on the parties named. That
he notified the Chief of Police that the parties
would be present at the church council that
afternoon, and that it was apprehended that
Miss Overmsn would leave the jurisdiction of
this court. Those 'subpenas were not and have
not We [ been served upon Miss Overman and
Mrs Tunnell And the deponent says that he
cannot proceed to trial without the presence
of Miss Matte 0verman, who is most mate
rial witness. and that the same applies to Mrs.
w. J. Tunnel.
The other affidavit is sworn to by Mrs. Mary
A. Davidson, the defendant in this case. In
that the afiant asserts that she expects to prove
by Mrs W. j. Tunnell that there existed and
still exists a conspiracy for the purpose 'of
falsely accusing her, Mrs. Mary A. Davidson,
of the crime Of extorTion. She expects to prove
that DR.. Charles o. Brown paid to Mrs. W. ].
Tunnel money with which to departout ofthe
Jurisdiction OF this court, and from attendance
at the church council, as well as this trial.
That she, the affiant. ia unable to prove theaex-
istence of this conspiracy without the aid OF
Mrs. w. J. Tunnell and Miss Matte Overman.
Mrs. Davidson expects to prove that DIR.
Charles o. Brown also caused Miss Matte Over
man to disappear, and togo into place OF hid
ing for no other purposes than to avoid attend
ance before this court, and the affiant states