The San Francisco call., 1897-02-10
mem bered the bank meeting on septem.

mem bered the bank meeting on Septem-
Der 27.
When court was reconvened at 2 P. NJ.
Valet Clark was called to the stand, but
his testimony was unimportant.
Edward Malley of the contracting firm
of Warren & Mailey, succeeded Clark
upon the stand. MIR. Malley, whose face
was wreathed with smiles, testified that
on Septem Der 81 1894. he was acquaint ted
with Senator Fair and Valet Clark. On
the afternoon of that day he saw the two
men on Post street.
Mr.. Fair entered the Mutual Savings
Bank, which confronts Post street, and
the tractile Clark waited on the sidewalk
for his master.
At the conclusion of an hours weary
vigil Clark was still in evidence, and, so
the witness presumed. Senator Fair was
still inside.
When cross-examined by Mr- Reddy, of
ounsel for the defense, Mr.. Malley, who
till retained his placating smile, admitted
hat he was not positive as to the date he
had seen Senator Fair and Clark on Post
street.
ontinuing, Mr. Malley testified that
during September, 1894, he was latter
Fair on every occasion" in the hope of
securing O desirable contract
When asked by Mr.. Reddy why he had
not gone into the Mutual Savings Bank to
speak to Senator Fair the witness stated
that the Senator had for some time
studiously avoided him and that he
wished to take him unawares. For the
same potential reason he had refrained
| from approaching Clark.
The witness admitted that he had not
until last Saturday informed any one as
TO his possession of information regarding
! the visit of Senator Fair in Septem ber,
| 1894, 10 the Mutual SAVINGS Bank. On
| the day in question he had gratuitously
volunteered the information to Charley
| 4 Fair.
| When Mr.. Malley had been excused
| Valet Clark was recalled. With studied
air of ennui the retainer of the dead Sem
| ator took the chair, ana in response to
questions admitted that he had within a
| few days conferred with Charles Fair 5
attorneys regarding the cause at issue,
and that he had with the same persons
discussed the matter of Senator Fair s
movements on September 27, 1894.
To long series of questions propounded
ably responded that he did not remember.
Finally Assistant District Attorney
Hosmer came to Clark's rescue by inter-
| posing all objection to the line of ques-
tioning pursued by the defense.
Springing TO his feet Mr.. Reddy de-
| clared that when he encountered wit
ness whose memory was like an old
| shoe, calculated TO fit only desired poin Is
and angles" he felt he was Justified in
being extreme in cross-examination.
Judge Cook assumed the role of great
| pacificator," and then the inquisition pro-
| ceeded.
| In reply to queries propounded by Mr.
| Reddy, the body servant of the deceased
millionaire testified that for eleven years
antecedent to the day of his demise Sena-
tor Fair had been afflicted with diabetes
and Brights disease of the kidneys. Dur
ing the time specified the witness had con-
stantly attended his patron.
| By series of ingenious interrogatories
Attorney Reddy sought to demonstrate
that owing 20 physical disability Senator
Fair could not have remained in the
Mutual Savings Bank for so long period
as that alleged thy i'm plication at leasD by
Mr.. Malley. But Clark's plea OF ataxlc
memory continued in force.
The case goes on to-day, commencing at
lO A.