The San Francisco call., 1897-06-22
LEFT A LOOPHOLE FOR
THE DEFENSE.
in Consequence Mrs Craven Is
Telling Her Whole
Story.
HOW THE COMPROMISE FELL
THROUGH.
Wheeler Avow d That He Would
L ave the Profession if He Siould
Deceive the L1dy.

The counsel for the Fair heirs found
much in yesterdays session of the litiga-
tion over the disputed deeds held by Mrs.
Craven to give them worry and tribula.
ton.
The lady defendant is still On the wit
ness-stand, under cross-examination by
her own legal champion, Mr.. Delmas.
When the opposing side essayed its great
coup, over a week ago, by Unexpectedly
calling her to the stand and subjecting
her to what was intended to be a wither-
ing fire of questions, as their own witness,
they resorted 10 extreme care not to let
slip any query that might open the way
for the defense to take advantage of we'll
known rules of evidence and return the
attack on cross-examination. By making
her their witness they were, under the
law, bound by her statements, and it
therefore behooved them to proceed eau
tiously and scan the ground for pitfalls.
But despite their shrewdness they per-
mitted themselves to be carried away
over the prospect of proving out of Mrs.
Cravea's own mouth that, by not record
ing her deeds until many months after
negligence that was certain to cast grave
suspicion on the genuineness of those
documents. True, the lady did admit
this delay, and her torturers felt secure in
the belief that she could not be given an
opportunity on cross-examination to ex-
plain why she was dilatory, and thus
leave the jury prejudiced against her.
But that is just where they made their
mistake. II developed at yesterdays
hat nd nf ho
way as effectively as they thought.
This became apparent when Mr.. Delmas
directed his client to give in detail her
reasons for not having hawked her deeds
about among the attorneys for the Fair
children. Strenuous objections welled up
rom the throats of the agitated barrist sters.
II was not cross-examinaiion, they roared,
and was palpably an attempt on the part
of the defense to break into the plaintiffs
case and interject matter calculated 10
help its own cause before the other side
had finished.
had let the bars down themselves and
would therefore have to abide by the con-
sequences. 1t was a "solar plexus'' blow,
so TO speak, and staggered them.
Mrs. Craven proce eded to relate that it
was the attorneys for the Fair children
them elves who, by their promises TO pur-
chase her claims, caused her to Withhold
her deeds so long from the Recorder.
And 10 demonstrate tina: she spoke the
truth in this regard she referred to letter
received at Monterey by her in July, 1895.
from her friend J. o. Hara Cosgrave, VINO
had interested himself in her behalf
Mr.. Delmas Immediately called for the
production of the letter, and in so doing
elected another chorus of objections from
mis- opponents. a long argument foI-
lowed thai lasted over into the afternoon
session. Mr.. Delmas took the simple
ground that the letter was intended to en-
Tighten the jury very materially as TO the
lady's reasons for keeping secret the fact
that she had the deeds in her possession.
Negotiations were under way al that time
TO compromise with her in regard to the
'penciri will. She had a right TO mis-
trust those with whom she was dealing,
and on that score acted wisely in not
letting them know that she had the deeds
as well as the then mucn-desired will. In
asmuch as the Cosgrave letter would 10 a
degree support this theory, it would GER
tainly be material evidence-particuIarl
in view of the fact that the other side had
opened the way for the introduc:io of
testimony on this very point.
Attorney Mitchell replied in opposition
to Mr.. Delmas' argument. He started off by
saying that If Mrs. Craven should be per-
mitted to give evidence regarding the
written instrument, or, if that paper were
introduced. as being a showing of her rea-
sons for not exhibiting the disputed deeds
TO the Fair heirs, there would be nothing
10 prevent following out that line of testi-
mony to unlimited extent. There would
be nothing to prevent the lady, be said.
from tesIiiying that some time in the
spring of 1895 she poked her head out of a
window, and, finding that it was raining,
announced that circumstance as one of
her reasons for not showing her deeds to
the heirs or attorneys.
Mr.. MITCHELL also claimed that state
ment, written or oral, made by Mrs.
Craven's agent was clearly hearsay evil
dence. He thought the court, in rejecting
testimony regarding Mrs. Craven's con-
veTsations with Attorneys Wheeler, Lloyd,
Wilson and Others connected with the
estate, had laid down rule that covered
the present issue.
Judge Slack said this was quite differ
ent case from that which brought out the
previous ruling. He was satisfied, he
exhibiting the deeds were, under the pres
ent circumstances, quite admiss! ble
While the document might be classed as
utarsay evidence still the fact that the
lady might have based her reasons on this
very class of evidence would make it ad-
missible.
Then it was that Mr.. Delmas fac.d the
jury and read in deliberate tone and sig
nitcant emphasis how Attorney Wheeler
had promised SO faithfully to stand by
Mrs. Craven through thick and thin and
see that she would get the money prom
ised her.
The letter was follows:
Dear Hrs. Crdren: had a positive talk with
Wheeler on Saturday. Told him how you felt
about a certain matter, and received assur-
ance that they intended 10 play absolutely
fair. 1t Was impossible, he said, TO go back on
your viii. They did not propose to try. He
would stake his reputation thereon. They
hoped and were negotiating to make matters
as pleasant as possible for you, aud believe if
the trust clause can De invalidated that the
last will Can be put through hands down. !