The San Francisco call., 1897-06-19
Why SorI Being owly

Much ado has been purposely made
manifest by these gentlemen over the
tardiness OF Mrs. Craven in The matter OF
recording the disputed deeds Her ad-
mission that she was dilatory in this re-
spect could, If left bare on the record, be
regarded as mite OF suspicious circum-
stance. But when it developed that she
withheld the deeds from record at the
special request of the very lawyers who are
now fighting her, the entire aspect OF the
transaction notably changed and the JUS
tice OF the ledy's action was readily OBJ
vious.
"Objected to- objected top was the
monoIonous song heard throughout yes
terday's session, and 1t robbed the pro-
ceedings of the interest and spice that
might otherwise have characterized them.
Attorney Wheeler acted as chief vocal ST
in this regard. he would consent 10 the
return OF no response from the witness to
Mr.. Delmas' queries without first showing
hurdle in its way, and the result was
that progress could only be made at snail
pace.
Mr. Delmas resumed the cross-examina-
ton of his client as court opened. He
managed to read several pages of the evil
dence she gave in her deposition year
ago in spite of hail OF obje ctions and
then proceeded TO question her regardin G
those declarations What be was striv-
ing for was the satisfaction of having the
jury hear all of Mrs. Craven's story in
stead of only snatches of il. 1t was tedi-
Gus work and required patience, but he
demonstrated that she is willing to relt-
crate the evidence that she gave before.
In answer to further questions Mrs.
Craven testified I'll at she said in her depo-
sition tnat she told Mr.. Lloyd she had
been the recipient of deeds from Senator
Fair, but had been careful not to tell him
that she had them in her possession. She
did not want any body to know This at the
time because she was afraid ste would
lose the deeds. The Fair "trust" will had
been stolen and she feared her documents
II ight suffer similar fate.
WAS the oath of September, 1894, the
first time you ever had those deeds in
your hands?" asked Mr.. Delmas.
at was" replied Mrs. Craven.
"WeIe they then in the same condition
in which they are now2"
Wheeler objected strenuously TO this
He said 1t was apparent that much of Mrs
Craven's defense was being adroitiy shown
examination. He was opposed to this
because it might prejudice the jury PRE-
maturely against the plain tiffs-it was
breaking into their case.
Mr.. Delmas replied that it would be a
pity if he was not permitted to protect his
witness by the cross-examination. She
had testified, be said, that she received the
deeds on September "a, 1894. Ii that
should be allowed TO stand as i. was, she
would be left on the record as having
practically sworn that the very documents
now in court are in the same condition
that they were when she got them. This
would put her in false light, because the
Acknowledgements attached to the deeds
bore date of Septemb Der 81 three days
later. True, she did get the deeds on the
24th; but Senator Fair took them away
again, in order TO have them ac-
knowfedged. Mr.. Delmas said he con-
sidered the objections 10 such a showing
as unfair and unjust.
The court ruled against Wheeler, and
Mrs. Craven said the deeds were not then
in the same condition that they are in now.