The herald., 1896-06-13
Petition of First Congregational
Church Granted
AN INSINUATED FRAUD
The Trial of Lewith for Embezzling DRY
Goods
Kate Cody Astonishes the Court With Her
Remarks-The Divorce Mill Grinding
StlIl-Oeneral Court Notes

Upon the resumption of the hearing
in the case on trial before Judge van
Dyke yesterday, wherein j.. Marion
Brooks seeks to recover from Mrs. Mary
Thaw of Pittsburg the comfortable sum
of $4,000 for legal services, there was a
conflict In the testimony offered.
The efforts for which ]. Marion Brooks
requires compensation were put forth
in behalf Of Captain S. L. Smith of San
Diego, cousin of the multi millionaire
against whom the suit was brought
When Edward Copley of Riverside,
brother of Mrs. Thaw, the defendant,
went upon the witness stand yesterday
he denied in minute detail almost every
thing to which the lawyer plaintiff had
testified. He swore that he had never
entered the Office of Mr.. Brooks until
after the trial. albeit he was here during
the entire time of trial. He also made
specific denial Of the allegation that he
had told Mr.. Brooks that he had been
authorized by his sister to go ahead and
incur expenses in connection with the
defense of her cousin, that he ever had
exhibited a letter from his sister con-
tanning any such instructions, or let it
pass into his possession for the purpose
of being read to Captain G. Hunt. to
which both Mr.. Brooks and the captain
had testified.
Mr.. Copley stated that his sister had
on the other hnad, told him to have
nothing to do with the case of Captain
Smith, and strongly and specifically dis
claimed having been the agent of Mrs.
Thaw. He denied authorizing Mr..
Brooks to defend the old man, and he
professed a dullness of comprehension
as to what possible claim Mr.. Brooks
could have for any money in the prem
iSes.
The deposition of Mrs. Thaw was read.
Therein she denied having written any
letter of authorization to her brother,
and stated that she had only met Cap
tain Smith once, about forty years be-
FORE and she expressed her Indignation
at him having invoked her fathers
name in speaking about his family after
having been arrested for numbering the
boy Walter Neal.
Several witnesses were introduced who
testified to having actually seen Edward
Copley in the Office of Mr.. Brooks, and
that, too, before the trial took place.
This somewhat minimiZed the testimony
of Mr.. Copley.
a few days before the trial Mr.. Brooks
informed them that he had heard from
Mrs. Thaw, and. arrangements having
been made their fees for expert teSti-
mony would be secured.
When E. RotZler, at one time clerk
in Mr.. Brooks office, took the stand
there was some contention of counsel
IcSdIulIE tlS NdllOlty VI tiiC Pidliitlii .
signature as endorsee of a note. The
witness stated that he had signed the
name of Mr.. Brooks in accordance with
instructions received frolo thelatter, and
he with intent initiated his handwriting
as we'll as he was able. In order to test
the matter, Mr.. Brooks and also the wit
ness were called upon to write the name
upon a sheet of paper. The imitation
signature of the lawyer was made by
witness somewhat more firmly than
the original but strikingly alike in out
line. Mr.. Rotzler stated that he gained
proficiency in initiating the signature of
Mr. Brooks when in his employ, and
when, in his absence, he was called upon
to sign passes to the Burbank theater.
The hearing of testimony, not having
closed. the case was adjourned until the
9Th inst