The San Francisco call., 1897-03-04
seuted Blanche at the time of her disappear
Kings Testimony Dissected.

sented Blanche at the time OF her olsappeai
Anoe' Kings Testimony Dissected
r. George R. King, upon direct examination
for the people, testified that when ne nou
to the church after buying the prohioSeiS =,
for Durrant he found him elther ,Ha g, -,
the iobby or lying on the platform IN lne is ouh
dav-sehool room but in which place He cutG&u IT ~
not remember For the purpose OF re1re,,Is ahs
his memory the District AttoIne!, ose ses ~
;action and exception by the defense, was per
mitted to read the following question: anu anu at M
swer from the testimony OF the same Ma'nIse .he
upon the preliminary eXemlhaAou ~ ~
Pnice Court: -. oonrrred
then?' ost;hr,e Of the
church by the front door q. anu ua a1 Vent inlo
seltzer and took dose OF II. nc
the kitchen to do that" ...,tr T
don't think that testimony was corrso.' ,vas
the ecross-examination was asked II ne %"s
not lying OH the platform. ana tnat cIea' ~ %
doubt IN my mind, and now | am nGt su,o tno
either way" The witness woutc nave nhu M @ enu
undoubted right 10 have read his testimony
given upon the examination, Tor the puapP.p1,S
of efres hing his memory. e.. e. r., sec. VA ~
S. CHI transcript ma ut least De reSarueo o5 81
q srivate memorandum. (Reld v; hetu, o.
Cal, 206.) Wht a witness called by parry
fails to testify to matters previously wl.nlu
his recollection, or gives evidence III appaIen.
variance with that formerly gwen, IL is hot
incumbent upon the party producing inc wiz
ness to wait ior the assaults of The cross-eN-
animation to expose seeming inconslsteHcles
and di screpancies While he may not mpeacn
hls witness Saving under C 'rtain exceptional
circu mstances) he may with proprlety reiresh
his recollection, to the end tnat the witness ana
his present evidence may both be put larry
and in their proper light before the jury. The
answer above quoted 3TordS good lllnstra-
,ion OF this. The witness admits the dlscrep-
ancy between his former and his present testl-
moIiy. and candidly explains 1T as arising
from q doubt created by his former cross-ex-
animation There was mere no lmpropiieis'
and no injury TO defendant.
The Janitor's Statement.
G. The jenitor OF the church was asked,
upon direct-exa miEation, If any one besides
himself had key TO his room He replied
81 have sometime left my room door locked
and found it open; therefore III coneiuded tnas M
some one had key TO it" The refusal OF the
court 10 strike this answer out is assigned as
error "because by ats nature the answer only
had tendency to cloud the minds OF the
Jury" and Unnecessarily injured the case OF de-
fendant" We are unable to perceive any force
in these objections.
III. The body of Blanche Lamont was found
nude and prone upon its back, with small
wooden block upon each side OF the head, ap-
parently used TO hold 1t In an upright POSI-
tion DR.. Charles E. Farnum was called for
the people and testified that he was the
uemonstrator of anatomy at the Cooper Medi-
cal college, which defendant attended, ana
that wooden blocks were used for purposes in
relation TO dead bodies. He was next asked:
"For what purpose are they used?" Objection
was made that the question was ire evant,
immaterial aud incompetent for any purpose.
The lire of proof sought to be established
by the prosecution WAS quite apparent. 1t
was en- endeavor to show by the demonstrator
of an atomy under whom defendant was study
ing some technical and peculiar use OF wooden
blocks in connection with dissecting-room
corpses similar TO the use made OF blocks about
the head of the body of the dead girl. The
court could not foresee the answer and prop
erly overruled the objection; for If the propo-
sition could be established, IL was clearly COM
petent for the people to do So In this, how
ever, there was signal failure. The answer
disclosed no posi- ible connection between the
facts in the case of the dead girl and the Gus
tom of the dissec cting-room. While the ques-
ton was pertinent, the answer therefore Jailed
TO furnish the required proof. 1t would un-
questionab bly, have been stricken out on mo-
ton OF the defense. But 10 motion was made
doubtless because the answer not only worked
no injury to the defense, but was an athrma-
tive advantage to 1t.
A Hypothetical Case.
The record next discloses the following ques-
ton, objection exception and answer:
90. Let me put hypothetical case to you
for moment: Suppose you had in your Gus
tody or care body which had but recently
died, and il was still almost warm with life.
You are acquainted with anatomy and sur
gerry, and you know that in a certain length of
time rigor mortis would set in, when the body
and the mem bers of the body would become
stiff. Now, If you wanted to keep the nead->
the face aud neck-in an upright position, IN
straight position, not turned 10 one side or
it in that position !?
..Mr. Deuprey-We object to that as net a
hypothetical question Involving any elements
in this case.
"Objeetion overruled.
Defendant excepts.
IA. / would place it first in the position in
which / wanted it, and if it did not remain
there l would prop it by supports IN the de-
sired position. Ny last answer is what as an
individual would do"
The objection, it will be noted, is not upon
the ground that the inquiry is not subject
OF expert evidence, but is based upon the one
proposition "that the hypothetical question
does not involve any elements in the case"
In strictness, therefore, this consideration
might begin and end with disposition of the
single ground of objection urged, and when it
appears, by fair in ferencei it does, that's me
one had murdered the girl, and that some
one was present with her till warm body, and
that some one placed the blocks for the pur-
pose of holding the head upright, it certainly
cannot be said that none of the elements OF
the case were involved in the hypothetical
question. Indeed, while counsel for the ap-
peilant, arguing this proposition, strenu-
ously insist that There is no evidence
in the record that any person wanted 10 keep
the head, the face or the neck in an up
right or any position, or in a straight posi- |
rion, not turned to one side or the other;
there was nothing in the way OF circumstance |
or in the way OF TACT es tabiShed that would |
permit the presumption of the conditions |
forced into the so-called hypothetical ques-
tion," we need but turl back four pages of |
their brief TO find the. curiously destructive |
derer OF this girl to place the head in a cer- |
tain posi;ion-and he did the most natural |
thing in the world, picked up a couple of
small blocks, evidently lying near, 10 hold the |
head in the position desired
Moreover, ny pothetical question need not |
embrace all the facts in evidence, or even be |
limited TO facts proved. 1t must be based |
upon facts in evidence, but may be addressed
TO any reasonable theory which may be taken |
OF them. In Filler VS.. n. Y. r. Co., 40 N. Y, |
46. it is is well said: "1t is the privilege OF |
q with limits Of ha
evidence, any state of facts which he claims
the evidence justifes and base the opinion of
experts upon the facts thus assumed. The
facts ssumed for the purpose of the ques- |
ton, and for no other purpose"
In Thompson on Trials (Seo. 604) the rule |
is thus aptly and succintiy stated: Tine rule
Tn IS tba s.
truth of all the evidence, or upon hypothesis
Continued on EleueRth PAGE