The San Francisco call., 1896-01-03

without the name in it. She then wrote the
name by in terlineating it. When the mama had
Deen written the paper was handed to me ard
| took ii off the block or pad ana handed Mrs
Davidson the money, $500.
Lloyd-Wbat became of that $500?
Bfown-She counted 1t very rapidly and put
I'it into her handbag.
What did she do then?
She said TO me: "God bless you Dr. Brown
1ou are now as safe as baby in its mothers
What did you do with the paper in her pres
ence? 20
l folded it, put 1t in envelope and put 1t
Is this the paper? (handing the witness
note size sheet of paper with writing on it,
Objection was made on the ground that
no proper foundation had been laid for the
Introduction in evidence of this document
The objection was overruled, and ATTORNEY
Gallagher said:
What time of day was it when the paper was
drawn?
Between II and 10 O'Clock. l dictated and
she wrote as dictated.
Did any further conversation occur at the
nIne the paper was written?
do not recall any.
Did she say what she wanted this money for?
She said she wanted the money for
objection by prosecution sustained at
this point on the ground that the witness
had already testified on this point.
Gallagher-Whet did you give her this
money for?
Brown gave her money to keen Mrs
Baddin from telling her story.
What story would she tell?
Objection made that this line of cues
tlonlng was not proper at this stage but
might come in on cross-examination At
torney Lloyd claimed that he had the
right 10 show the transactions that oc-
Cured between the defendant and the
witness in order to show that the paper in
question was the one that she had written
and signed.
In the course OF his argument ATTORNEY
Gallagher said:
But what if l can show that this paper was
produced under duress and threats or fair
promises, your Honor will not admit it be-
cause they will not be permitted to manufac-
ture evidence for themselves?
The court-Read the paper.
Gallegher-Wc object on the ground that
there is not sufficient evidence for its admis-
sion.
The court-0bjection overruled
Witness handed the paper to Attorney
Lloyd, who read it. 1t was as follows:
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. %, 1895.
In consideration OF q sum OF $500 paid to me-
as agent for Jane Catherine Baddin at date and
OF $35 to be paid in cash and of $35 to be paid
IN cash ana every month, commencing Janu-
ary aagI l. 1o9o 1or I'VE years ending January l,
1901, / do hereby agree to protect the good
name of c. 0: Brown and to protect him from
all personal demands in connections with the
apoFe mGtteF' MARY A. DAVIDSON.
The court addressing witness)-This was
your money the $500?
Brownies, sir.
THAT is all, y said Attorney Lloyd, and
Attorney Gallagher for the defense began
the cross-examination as follows:
How long have you lived in San Francisco?
came here three years ago last August and
have been preaching in the First Congrega-
nxra civ
Davidson about sixteen months. She taught
a Bible class in my church. 1 knew her when
she lived at 100 Post street. She did not re-
side there, but kept store. She resided about
the third door from Cough street on Ellis. 7
visited her there but twice.
When Attorney Gallagher asked the
witness did anybody live there with her
that you knew?'' Attorney Lloyd inter
rupted with the following:
AT the interviews of November q and
Y, when the lodging g-house keeper was
spoken OF, was the name of the woman
with whom DR.. Brown was seen men
toned 2"
Yes sir. 1t was Martha Overman.
Dr. Brown then testified as follows in
continuation of his cross-examination: II
nave known Miss Overman for five years.
don't exactly recall the words of my con.
versation with Mrs Davidson which re-
1erred to Martha Overman, but Mrs.
Davidson indicated to me that Miss Over
man was one of the three persons who
would swear to the lodging house occur
renee"
Prosecution objected to the following
question: Have you been to any lodging.
houses with Miss Overman at all?''
In arguing his right to ask it, Attorney Gal
laSher, said: | want to show that the state
meht made to the doctor by Mrs. Davidson in
reference to his relations with Miss Oterman
are true want to show that it was the inten-
tloh OF Mrs Davidson to help the doctor out of
trouble. she went to see her pastor to see
II anything could be done to avoid a scandal
we Will show that Mrs. Baddin was known to
DR.. Brown and a great many other people We
Simply want to show the motive of Mrs
DAVIDSON to have been good one and that
she old not act at the time in an unlawful
manner. We want to show, as the witness him
sell has testified, that she acted not only as the
agent for Mrs. Baddin, but became on the
doctors own request the negotiator for him.
After the prosecution had argued the
matter further, on the ground that the
truth or falsity OF the charges made
against DR.. Brown cut no figure in the
case, the court ruled in favor of the prose-
cutlon, and decided that no testimony
would be allowed on this point
Il am here TO try this case in the light
OF the law, said the Judge, 'sand not mr..
bltrarily, therefore l sustain the OBJ
jection.'
DR.. Brown lnterposed asking, "May I
say word ?" but Gallagher objected. stat
ing that he did not wish anv theatricals
from the witness.