The record-union., 1896-05-16

ner then demanded that these copies be
placed before the court, instead of al
lowing the witness to give her own
version of what they contained.
This was objected to by Mr.. Jones,
who argued that the rule did not re-
quire the witness to submit copies OF
letters made for her own use. The de-
fense claims to have the original let
ters written by Mrs. Lee and II they
wished to be fair they would allow her
to see them in order to refresh ner
memory.
Mr. Bruner read the provision of the
code bearing on the subject and sald
it was clear that the copies in MRS.
Lees possession should be introduced.
The defense claim that there was ar
tiflce on her part to entrap MI Greg
ory; that she made copies of these let
ters for that purpose, and she should
produce them instead of trusting to
her memory.
The matter was debated at some
length by counsel and finally Judge
Henry ruled that the contents OF the
letters could be proven in either way
the production of the originals, copies
thereof or from the witness memory.
Resuming. Mrs. Lee explained that
check for the $4,000 was sent by her
either in personal letter to Mr. Greg
ory or to the firn-she could not say
which.
An acknowledgment of the receipt
Of the money was forwarded by Mr..
Gregory, and in response to this she
wrote a letter of a personal nature, the
contents Of which she could not recall.
Neither could the witness say what
Gregory wrote her in response thereto,
as she could not find that letter
The witness here explained that she
did not keep copies of the letters she
wrote to Gregory, as she had been un-
derstood to say. Before mailing her
letters she usually made drafts of them
and then rewrote them. AS a rule, she
destroyed these rough drafts of let
terS.
The next letter from Gregory was
brief, merely announcing his return
from a trip, adding that he had sent
the note, and that it was a personal
matter between the witness and her
manager" This was in January,
1893
The next letter offered in evidence
was written in January, 1894. In it
the writer Gregory spoke of the last
few months stagnation and said it had
worried him. He said it was not neces-
sary to write any formal letters to the
firm, as he, as it's head, could attend to
matters.
A letter Of April %, 1894, stated that
Gregory was about to leave for Tulare.
1t spoke of a "Shriner" party and ban
quet which he had attended. The let
ter referred to ''the matter of three or
four thousand dollars and the writer
said it would come in better then thaa
at any other time, as they were in need
of it.
In letter of October 1894, Mr.. Greg
ory said: You ask if l can use $1,000
or $4,000. 1 do not want it (aD all un-
less you can trust to my integrity"
Some reference was made to the con
Servatism % that characterized her
last letter, but the writer said he sup
posed it was in keeping with the times
The next letter from Gregory, after
referring to the rush of business and
how it had prevented him from enjoy
ing more agreeable diversion, acknoWl-
edged the receipt of a pleasant letter
from Mrs. Lee. He said he could ap-
preciate her kind offer to increase the
loan, as they had a good chance to use
it to advantage. The original loan had
become scattered through various chan
nels, and returns came back in a small
way. There was a good chance then to
use a little money, and it should not be
allowed to pass.
On April 10. 1894 Gregory wrote Mrs.
Lee letter, in which he said he could
not get those who owed money to give
it up, though then was the time to use
money to good account The rest of
the letter was purely personal and
spoke of mutual friendships.
This letter, said Mrs. Lee, was writ
ten after the second, or 81, 900, loan
The noon hour having arrived, a re-
cess was taken until 3 p. m, as Assist
ant District Attorney Jones had to try
q. case in a country court.
He had not returned at p em, so the
further hearing of the case was con-
tinued until Monday.