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

This, he said, was no new proposition. 1t
was he said, the course that was fire.
quentlv resorted to by blackmailers.
In his closing argument Attorney Gal
lagher said 1.-The receipt he demanded
from Mrs. Davidson to project him Or.
Brown) showed he was afraid of such a
secret. Mrs. Davidson never since tried
to levy further backmail on him. Does
that show that she had any personal in
terest in the matter so far as the money is
concerned? This motion Is made in char
lty for the protection of the prosecuting
witness. We wish to prevent further pub
llcatlon OF this scandal-to prevent de-
PENDANT going on the stand and telling all
she knows Tegarding this secret OF DR..
Browns So
At the conclusion of his argument At
torney Gallagher asked the court to take
the matter under advisement, as the de-
Tense, and perhaps the prosecution, might
want to bring further authorities to the
notice of the court. Attorney Lloyd said
he was willing 10 have the court take the
matter under advisement, bat the court
stated that he required no time to make
his decision, speaking as follows:
think that all the facts and the testimony
and the actions Of the defendant in the office
of the prosecuting witness establish in my
mind that she went there for the purpose OF
frightening DR.. Brown into paying her money
Her action and manner, as described by the
prosecuting witness, show this. She did not
go there in a kind Christian spirit to protect
him. She went there, l think, from the man.
ner described, 10 obtain money from DR.. Brown
for herself 1t seems that way to me. Admit
ting ali these facts to be true, she went there
aud became excited produced this receipt and
refused TO give the name OF the nameless
woman and said it would be no use for DR..
Brown tn see the woman. The motion is de-
MED. Exception noted by defense.
Gellagher-Take the stand, DR.. Brown.
At this point one of the attorneys an
nounced that he had begun TO suffer fro m
the pangs of hunger and suggested that
recess be taken. The court was then ad-
journed to 2:l5.
1t was 2:35, however, before the proceed
ings were resumed. DR.. Brown was re-
called for further cross-examination and
was asked by Attorney Gallagher regard
ing paper that he had prepared and given
to the press of the City Immediately after
the arrest of Mrs. Davidson. Dr. Brown
had been instructed by the court to have
this document in court, but confessed that
he had forgotten about it and Immediately
dispatched his son, who was present, for
the missing paper.
Attorney Lloyd endeavored to prevent
the introduction OF this paper by COM
polling the defense to state the exact pur-
port of it; but Mr.. Gallagher refused to
commit himself further than to say that
the paper he wanted was the one that DR..
Brown had read to the newspaper report
ers in the office OF Captain Lees on the
day that Mrs. Davidson was arrest ted and
which appeared in the morning papers OF
the following day, concluding: II don't
propose to be tricked."
Awaiting the return of DR.. Browns son
Attorney Gallagher resumed the cross
examination of the witness, as follows:
Doctor, did you have any conversation about
Mrs. Baddln, or about the nameless woman
whom you atterward learned was Mrs Bad
din prior to the 21st OF November with Mrs.
Davidson
Objection on the ground that the ques-
ton did not relate to the three occasions
offered in the direct examination of the
witness.
Attorney Gallagher am asking il for the
pu rpose of contradicting the witness regard
ing matters that occurred on these three occa-
sions. II can show that he has made g state
ment that at the time he says this converse
ton was held it was held in her rooms
and not in the church at all, have right to
ask this question. / want to show that the
action of Mrs. Davidson and her demand did
not occur i'll the church, but in her house, and
l want to show it by his own statement. Iam
asking him now if he had any previous meet
ing where Mrs. Baden was mentioned. l want
to ask this Tor the purpose of showing the
credibility OF witness, and also the intent with
which Mrs. Davidson went to the church and
all her meetings with witness.
Objection sustained
uSI-tClu you not, III the ldJIer part OF
December, 1894, make a confession freely and
as follows to the defendant that you loved a
friend with love far exceeding that for your
wife and that the woman was Miss Nettie
Overman? Did you make any such confess
sion?
Lloyd Ito witness)-wait q moment TO
court)-Objection on the ground that it is not
proper, cross-e1amiration, as it does not re-
fer TO the three occasions covered in the direct
examinations of the witness.
Brown would like to answer that ques-
ton.
Lloyd-Don't you answer any question until
you permitted
Gallagher protest to the action of the wit
ness and his counsel. They should not be per-
m1tted to give us these displays, which are
made for the purpose of giving the public the
impression that the witness is willing to an
swer these questions Go witness)-Did you
not in the month of August, 1895, tell de-
PENDANT that you had given Mrs. Tunnel $40
to be given to Matte Oyerman?
Objection on same ground as before.
Sustained.
Gallagher Ito court)-I ask this question for
the purpose of showing the intent with which
the defendant acted. ITO witness)-Did YOU
not IN August, 1895. call at the defendant
house and leave the sum of S35 with the de-
iendant Tor Miss 0verman, saying that you
desired TO assist Miss Overman?
Objection on same grounds as BEFORE
Same ruling.
The COURT don't see why you insist on ask
ing these questions.
Gullfoyle-I will explain why we take this
position. If the witness should die the prose
cutlon would have the right to read his teSti-
mony, and we ask these questions so that
wnen we go to the Superior Court and the wit
ness dies and goes out of the State we may pro-
tect the defendant in her right. We want to
De IN q position TO raise the point OF the adj
mISslblllty OF the statement of witness.
Lloyd-One question of that kind is enough
upon.