The San Francisco call., 1897-06-26
BACHELOR OFFICERS QUARTERS

what he knew about her deeds. His reply
was that he had received such a note, but
refused to make the desired statement.
What did Kelly say to that?" asked
Wheeler
HE SAID it was too good a chance to
make money to throw away. Hs said
Cooney had testified, and ali was right. !"
"And what, if anything, did you say? ?"
''Oh, told him again that l would have
nothing to do with the case" said the vir-
tuous man.
Aitken said he saw Mrs. Craven's deeds
for the second time on the afternoon of
July Is, 1896. That was at his office.
Miss Margaret Craven brought them
there for him to examine. The witness
said he subsequently talked to Martin
Kelly about the young lady's visit and
that he told Kelly that he did not want
Miss Craven to annoy him. He told him
that he was out OF the case.
"Mr. Kelly insistsd d that everything had
been arranged" continued Aitken. "Cul-
len was also to testify that he had been
shown the deeds early in 1895 and had
made written statement TO that effect.
He showed 1t to me. 1t was on q piece of
But l stuck to it that / would have moth
ing to do with the case"
At this juncture of Aitken's weird story
Judge Slack adjourned court for the usual
noon recess.
Aitken was again handed the draft or
copy of his contract with Mrs. Craven
the agreement by which he was to serve
as her legal adviser-at the beginning of
the afternoon session, and he was remind
ed that he had already testified that he
ana Morris L. Asher drew up that docu-
ment.
''Now, s1r,'' said Attorney Wheeler,
what did you do with that contract after
you had finished itP"
After an objection had been overrule
Aitken replied that he gave the contra CT
to Martin Kelly on the 21st of July, 1896.
''Were there any pencil marks or inter
Iineations on it at that timer"
There were not"
"Were any of the typewriter words of
that paper marked out or scratched when
it left your handsP"
mo"
"When did you see it again after you
gave it to Kelly2"
81 think it was the 1st Of August of the
same year."
Aitken went on to say that between the
dates he had mentioned he had a talk
with Mrs. Craven over the telephone in
reference to the contract. He could not
swear that it was Mrs. Craven, but he be-
lieved it was her. He thought he recog-
nized her voice.
Judge Curtis relieved Mr.. Foote of the
task of presenting the objection to this
last evidence. He said that under The
law Aitken could not give his beliefs and
disDeliefs on the stand. There was evil
dence in the record, he said, that Aitken
never saw Mrs. Craven after the 9th oi
July, 1896 The fact that he believed ne
had talked with her subsequently over the
telephone was wholly inadmissibIe, espe.
cially in view of the further fact that be
fhof Me-
Craven to whom he was 'phoning. The
only way in which Aitken could testify
on this particular subject would be BY
showing, first, that he was positively ia
miliar with Mrs. Craven's voice-familiar
enough to be able to swear absolutely
that it was she who talked with him over
the telephone.
Supreme Court decision in which the tes-
timony of witness to the effect he ''be-
lieVed that was the man who committed
the robbery" was ruled to be admissi BILE.
and led to the conviction of the defendant.
Mr.. Foote argued that there was wide
difference between the Identification of a
personality and the Identification of a
voice. In the former case the ability to
recognize was far more reliable than in
the latter instance.
Messrs McEnerney and Wheeler took a
turn each at the argument, and Judge
Curtis and Mr.. Foote fought them back
agai u.
Mr.. Delmas, who was late in arriving,
made the closing argument for the de-
Tense against the admission of the tele-
phone conversation. He said that one
some times encountered in asking the
central girl for a number what
sounded like q human voice saying 1.-THE
line is busy, cali again. The line is busy,
call again. over and over again. OF
course one who did not know differently
would be almost willing to swear that it
was human voice he had heard. The
fact of the matter was that it was no hu-
man being at all. but instead was the
sound of phonograph being poured into
the receiver OF the telephone.
He gave this, he said, as an illustration
of the inadmissi bility of telephone evil
dence and its utter unreliability.
When the matter finally reached the
court for ruling Judge Slack said that
there were doubts as to the weight OF
value of the telephone conversation, but
he would admit it for what it was worth.
Aiken then proceeded. 1t appeared
that ex-Judge Jere Sullivan told him to
ring up Mrs. Craven, as she wished to
talk with him.
81 accordingly rang up blue 401," he
said, "and a female voice answered. was