The San Francisco call., 1897-07-09

Upon hearing this Attorney Gavin Nc
Nab. who represents Mrs. Brad bury, arose
and said that his client was still in such a
prostrated condition that it would be i'm
possible for her 10 appear in court for
some time to come. Her physician had
forbidden her leaving her bed.
Judge Low suggested that short ses-
Sion OF the court might be held in Mrs
Brad burJ's apartments in order that her
statement could be taken.
But this course was forcibly opposed by
Mr.. McNab. He said that it was a we'll
known fact that Ward had been moving
heaven and earth in his efforts to see his
victim" and this would offer him the
very opportunity he was seeking. Under
the law he would have he right to be
present should Mrs. Brad burv's deposi-
ton te taken, ana this was the very thing
her relatives and protectors did not wish
to have happen.
Wards jaw dropped when Mr.. Sweeney
acQuiesceu with M. MoNab and said he
would not insist upon having the woman's 8
statement. His last chanc- was gone.
An evening ssion had to be held in
order to permit Mr.. Sweeney to close the
prosecution. When court reconvened he
called 10 the stand John T. Gaffey OF Los
ANGELES, who is Wards brother-ln-law.
Although ii was not expected that Nj.
GIffey would willingly give evidence
against a member of his family, yet he
answered the questions propounded to
him frankly and with no apparent effort
to hide anything. He furnished the pros
ecution one missing link in its chain OF
evidence, and that was a positive state
ment that Ward was a married man.
Ward, he said, was united in marriage to
Miss Bandrni in Lbs Angeles on the 22d
of June, 1887 Mr.. Gaffey also said that
he knew The woman who eloped with his
brother-in-law. She was the wife of John
Bradbu of Los Angeles
This closed the evidenc for the prose-
cntion. Mr.. McEncrney promptly made
motion 10 have the charge against his
client dismissed on the ground that no
crime had been proved. The attorney
WAS beaming with confidence, the re-
marks OF the court during the day having
prom ptei him to believe that every thin.,
was gong his way.
Mr.. Sweeney opposed the motion, and
an argument followed. Mr.. McEnerney
led off, taking as his text the one point
that he referred TO frequently during the
examination, and that was that the run
away couple had not been in open and no.
torious coha bitatlon. 1t was not the no.
toriety that metropolitan press gives to
the actions of people that counts, he said,
but the noloriety caused by their own
c)ndt CT. He quoted numerous author
ties in support of his posit on.
Mr.. Sweeney replied by saying that the
evidence showed concIuslvely That Ward
and Mrs. 81 bury ran away for the de.
llnerale purl ose of living together as man
and vile, and declared that they cared ct
for what the world aid about it. That he
considered was about as open and notor-
Gus as could be i'm agined.
Prosecuting Attorney Reynolds added q
few words TO The effect that if travelling
together on a public train, lrequenting
public restaurants and lodging together
In public eeping-houses did not consti-
tule an open and notorious proceeding
when pract ced by persons who are not
only not married to each other but have
husband and wlie respectively of their
own, then he did not understand the Eng
lish language.
The m ton to dismiss was then submit
ted TO he court and, to the surprise of Mr..
McEnerney and the complete dlscom.
tilure OF Ward, it was denied BY Judge
Low. The Judge said that there was NOT
now any doubt left III his mind that the
elopers deserted their own homes for no
other purp, SO than to live to ether IL
licity, and in fact that they did 80
openly for certain length of time. He
did not think he would be justified in dis
missing such case off-hand.