The San Francisco call., 1897-06-25

asked PERMISSION 10 speak. de SAID 1t
was simply a waste of time TO quote from
the decisions OF other States when our
owu code-our own law-was so plain on
the subject. Our law, be continued, made
absolutely no exceptions in regard to the
confidential relations existing between
attorney and client. The law sealed the
lips OF priest and attorney alike.
Nothing" he said, would be more
horrible to those who find consolation in
religion, and especially to that large
class of the community who consider the
sacrament of penance as one of the most
consoling and wholesome that has been
provided by the church for the re-
lief of the over-burdened souls. Moth
ing, L say. could be more repug-
the sense of any right thinking persons
than that a person who has had confided
to him, by virtue of the secret of the con-
iessional, a confession of the guilty con-
science by receiving absolution, for which
alone the gates of the future life can be
opened for the penitent, that that priest
should be permitted or should be COM
PEELED for any purpose OF administration
OF justice to betray the evidence that has
been reposed in him-and history does
not reveal in the whole tide of events
which occur for over 1900 years, and that
go to make up the annals of the Catholic
church, one single instance from any
mem Der of that priesthood, however
otherwise he may have sinned or been
degraded, where il has ever been heard of
that he had betrayed the secrets con-
fded TO him. No torture, no offer of re-
ward, no hope OF personal gain, has ever
been known 10 make any member of that
priesthood swerYa a hairs breadth from
that most holy of duties that he owed 10
those who had sought through him that
absoiution. that forgiveness which is
promised to ali those who repent"
Judge Slack announced, at the opening
OF the afternoon session, that he had been
studying up the authorities governing the
point as to whether or not Aitken could
testify regarding what took place between
himself and Mrs. Craven. His Honor s
ruling was rather two-sided. He said that
the fact that Martin Kelly was present at
the interview really made no difference
the communication from client to attor-
ney was privileged. But if it were shown
that in that conversation an attempt was
| made to get the attorneys consent to COM
nit crime that might be shown.
Mr.. Kelly, for instance, could be called
to the stand. or, it might be shown by
Aitken himself that he was asked to COM
NIT a crime.
The attorneys on 10th sides Interpreted
the ruling as being in heir favor. Judge
Slack then eIucidated by saying that un-
der the mesg ger evidence so far adduced
| Dy Allken tue % leCliOH OF tue OeIenSe was
sound, but this did not prevent another
course by the plaintiff side.
I'VE insist upon ruling OH our obiec-
ton, if your Honor please" said Mr..
Delmas, determinedly.
Wheeler saw what was coming and
withdrew the question that had caused all
| the argument. Aiken was then asked IL
anything was said at that momentous in
terview tending to impress him that his
services would be desired as witness in
stead of an attorney.
why not get right down 10 the point 2'
asked Mr.. Delmas. "Why this lodging
around? fit is tbe purpose to show that
Mrs. Craven made a corrupt propo. ition
10 this witness-namely, to have him
testify to something that he knew and
she knew to be false-we have no obiec-
ton TO the question. Come out with it.
Don't evade it."
'I think you are right" said Judge
Slack. 'Mr. Wheeler, you will have to
ask the direct question and confne YOUR
self to any transaction, claimed 20 be cor
rupt, occurring between Mrs. Craven and
this witness"
Wheeler asked another question, but it
was again eyasive and again objected to.
Mr.. DelmaS advised him TO get to the
point. 1t was apparent he said, from the
line OF questions asked that they did not
expect TO prove that Mrs. Craven made
any SOiAupS piObooANlOus 1uGS KNOW IuaL
such was not the case.
1T is So" impetuously snapped
Wheeler.
What are you testifying for?" asked
Mr.. FoOte, turning 10 Wheeler. IF you
are witness L want to cross-examine
you"
Attorney Wheeler was persistent in
twisting the question around and around
without getting to the point, until he was
finally taken to task by the court and
commanded to get down to business.
Then the direct question was put if Mrs.
Craven asked the witness TO testify that he
saw the deeds in January or February,
1895, instead of July, 1896 as he testified
that Is, was such a proposition made to
him.
There was" replied Aiken.
Wheeler wanted to know if Martin
Kelly took any part in the conversation.
but the court ruled that at this time
Kelly's connection was imm aterial
Aitken then proceeded to relate what
he ALLEGES took place between himself and