The San Francisco call., 1896-01-10
into my trunk?" and Immediately left the
room in great confusion.
COURT PROCEEDINGS.
Lively Tits Between Judge, Counsel
and Defending Witness-Case
Continued To-day.


and Defending Witness-Case
Continued To-Day.
Judge Campbell kept the many hun
dreds of people who were anxious to listen
to the cross-examination of Mrs. Davidson
yesterday guessing from l o'clock, the
hour set for the continuation of the hear
ing of the charge of extortion against the
defendant, until l 40 P. NJ, when he called
for order IN the courtroom of Judge Conlan,
instead of that of Judge Joachimsen. as
had been announced. The uncertainty
relative to the place of holding court and
the delay in opening the proceedings that
have characterized this case We're the sub
lect OF much unfavorable comment AS
was stated by an interested person enough
time has been thus unnecessarily wasted
to make up days session of the court.
In advancing to take the stand Mrs.
Davidson showed almost youthful spright-
llness In her apparent eagerness to face the
ordeal of cross-eXamination that awaited
her. Her counsel opened the proceedings
by asking her, Did you relate to the
doctor at any of the meetings you had with
him prior to the day that he gave YOU the
$oOo the conversation or conversations you
had with Mrs. Jane Elizabeth Baddin?''
10 this the witness replied, II did"
Counsel for the prosecution objected to
her repeating this conversation, as it had
already been given, Mr.. Lloyd iocularly
remarking that he objected to a repeater
The wrangle ended when Attorney Gal
lagher had succeeded in getting the wit
ness TO state that what she told the doctor
relative to the Baddin conversation was
true. The cross-examination was begun
IN rather an unexpected manner, being
based on letter received from Chief In
spector w. B. Walls of Boston, Mass, in
closing copies Of papers in the case of the
people of the State of Massachusetts
against Mary A. Davidson.
These papers purport to show that Mrs
Davidson was convicted of certain crime
In that State nine years ago.
Accompanying the letter was also pho
tograph Of the woman convicted, on the
back of which appeared the following:
January 2, 1896.
l, Joseph E. Shaw of Lynn, county of Essex,
commonwealth of Massachusetts, hereby make
the following deposition, to wit:
l have known Mary A. Davidson, alias Mary
P. Sturgis, for fifteen years and more, and while
a member OF the Massachusetts, district police
arrested her in Albany, N Y November II
1856. She was brought TO this commonwealth
tried at the Superior Court at Salem, January
term, 1887, convicted on four counts for selling
months In the House of Correction, which SEN
tence she served
[ also declare this photograph to be correct
likeness OF her at the time OF her arrest.
JOSEPH E. SHAW.
Suffolk-ss. January 2, 1896
Personally appeared before me joseph E.
Shaw, who made oath that the above statement
mds Iue 10 the Dest OF MS knowledge and be-
het ISAAC S. MUDEN,
Justice of the Peace
Judge Louderback had charge of the
cross-examination.
"Did you ever reside in Albany?"
This raised an objection on the ground
that 1t was not proper cross-examlnation
Attorney Gallagher claiming he had asked
her nothing about Albany, adding that he
had carried her from the time of her birth
to 1873 only,
The court-I am inclined to think where Won
have gone into her life the prosecution have
the right 10 go into her whole life.
Gallagher-lf your Honor is going to try the
case according to the rules of evidence, and
you have applied them strictly against the de-
fendant, you should apply them now We
have excluded twenty years from her life
Ihere Is nothing in the record on these years
and the prosecution has no right to go into
that per1od on cross-examination, but must
conflne itself, according to the decision of the
supreme Court, in the cases of defendant
strictly to the matters brought out on direct
examination.
The court-Objection sustained
Louderback-Did you know woman by the
name OF Henrica Iliohon in Albany?
"No, sir"
.'Dld you know such woman at any timer"
II never knew her."
"Did not she accuse you of obtaining money
under false pretenses on fraudulent insur-
anee policy in which you figured under the
name of Baddin?'
The court sustained an objection on the
ground 1.-THE question not being proper in
cross-examination.
Louderoack-Did you ever reside in Lynn,
Mass?
In response to an objection by Attorney
Gallagher ex-Judge Louderb back said his
question was merely preliminary, and that
he would prefer to wait till the statement
regarding her conviction was brought into
court.
This aroused Attorney Gailaghers ire,