The evening times., 1897-06-18

The third day OF the MuIlan couru-mar-
tial began at 10 O'Clock this upruing After
the approval of the record Attorney Hay
den. for the defense, called Louis X
Brown as witness. Mr.. Brown gave his
residence as l34 street southeast, anI
his place OF employment as the Treasury
Department Witness was handed some
papers. purporting TO be a summary of the
payroll of the Pensacola navy yard Wit
ness Brown is the chief OF lhat division
at he Tres Sury Department through which
the pay-Tors passed.
Witness identified the papers, and the
defense then offered thcm as evidence
ia rebuttal OF specification OF charges
Tn, reas bu Tor rtheintroduc1lono OF these pay
rolls in evidence was To show that the
signatures of Commander Mullan IA ade in
witnessing the signatures OF the payees of
navy yard were written in firm and
usual hand
The judge advocate objected To this. on
TIE ground that the defenSe dad not show
that Commander Mullan had signed at the
uWe the payments were made
The defense then put Commander Mullan
on the stand lie testified that the sigma
turcs II ". Mullan' appended II the pay
rolls, were in his handwriting, ana that
were made an December 81, 1886, and
in the presence of the payees Specifica-
tion No. Of charge sets forth that Com
mandcr MulIan was drank on December 81 q,
1896, and this payroll WAS introduced as
part Of tie evidence which the defense VIII
was not drank on that dav. Commander
MullaU testified that the signatures were
MaGc hctweru 1 and 4 o'ClocS.
Attorney Hayden then presented the
papers - tue court and the Judge advocate
called TINS an uuhear1 Of procedure. al
leEing that these papers should not have
teen presented to the court until the
Judge advocate had had an opportunity II
Inspect them and To enter objection
TuGer erc~S-eNamiUaJ' Commander Mul-
Ian >tg'eG firmly that ne had signed this
payroll between the hours of ] and /
on December 81. 500, in the presence OF
the payeeS and in the pay office Of the
Pensacola navy yard
u was the intent Of the prose, ution 10
show thar Commander Mullan had signed
this December pay roll at a time subSe-
qUent TO that at which the payments Were
mace and had not signed his name direct ~
after thdtof each payee on theron.
Witness Brown was recalled and Attor-
Uey Hay ydcn announced that tie direct
examination OF the witness was atan end.
Neithcr the Judge advocate nor the presi-
dent of TIE court had any questions To ask
tine witness. and he was disc harced.
the Inspection or the Officers composing the
c7urt-maruaL Certified copies viii be
made by the Treasury Department and ap-
pended e. The re,oui OF the court.
The testimony Of L A Williams given
before tie court OF inquiry at Pensacola,
was read by Attorney Hayden The de-
ren>co+frre litIS Sdiro,tevIdcnCpin rnbuttal
uf the second Charge TIE prosecution
objected 20 this. and the objection was
SIStIinen. q was then introduced as cvi-
tpHCe Of the good character OF Com
manIer NG!lan This testimony was that
Commander t.uliau appeared 10 be- under
the influence &c ,ome opiate. but witness
ttoB-hJ be had never seen the accused
drunk
The test 'imony Of Henry Diffin. p laborer
in the PrnSa cola navy "a nj. was then read
Witness hHG seen the accused sonnet iIipas
two ard three ines daily. He considered
aim ,-cntlcuan and never saw any in
diCstoBs OF liquor about him. Witness
had walked frequently 10y the side Of the
CoUmudGcr but had never >melleG the
fumes Of l5quoI on HIM. He had seen the
commander. but had never sB.piied the
about New Years Day, prohablvoR necrm
beT 81. The commander was sober on
that day.
Under CroSs-cxamination by the prosecu
ton Witness nnfin was asked about hts
enE1 cement with Miss Eva Carruw At
torney for defense objected 10 the intro
duction Of this question and answer on the
ground Of irTclcvsnCy. The prosecution
maintained that ii wanted 10 show what
kind Of a witness Diffn was.
The defense held that the court martial
had no right 60 20 into the matrimonial alii-
ances Of the witnesses. A little friction be-