The San Francisco call., 1898-12-21

who would be dishonored by association with him. He was brought before Judge Cook yesterday morning and was again asked to reveal the identity of tho women who had so far lost their sense of shame as to be his companions in [ 9 gross revelries of the tenderloin. Dun ming refused to answer He declared that these women were not concerned in the crime that brought death to his wife, and he declined positively to tell who they are. For his refusal to answer he was sent back to the County Jail. and there he will remain until his tongue loosens or Judge Cook relents.
 The trial of Mrs Botkin yesterday 1-as practically without a striking incident. After Dunning appeared and had been Temanded to the custody of the Sheriff the proceedings drifted into heavy. dreary presentation of dry facts. The prosecution was engaged in presenting its last proof of Mrs. Botkin's alleged guilt and in gathering the odds and ends of its long and complicated case. Mrs Louise Seeley, the sharer of Dun ning's cheap hospitality and a partici- pant in the shameful orgies that disgraced 927 Geary street, took the stand to tell what she knew of the relations between Cunning and Mrs. Botkin.
 Mrs. Seeley was frank. She told what she knew, but the information added nothing except a confession of immor- ality to the story that had already been presented to the jury. Attorney Knight attempted and succeeded in showing that Mrs. Seeley is not a friend of Mrs. Bot kin, and is more than a friend of her son. While Mrs. Seeley was on the wit ness-stand Mrs. Botkin watched her close ly and critically. The accused woman came to court yesterday heavily yelled TC ha cTq nf hA fence and the criticism of interested ob- servers. Mrs. Seeley's testimony was sim ply corrobOrative of the fact that Dun ming and Mrs. Botkin lived a life that placed them beyond the pale of decent people. There was nothing in the womans testimony to support the aliegation of B. pr5-c -st,cl that Mrs. Botkin was jealous to the point that suggested mur- der.
 Testimony was also offered to show that Mrs. Botkin was well known as custom CT of the City of Paris. The prosecutors had evidently reviewed their own case and determined to leave not the slightest point untouched. Knight had insinuated that a servant might have won a terrible revenge in the Pennington household by poisoning it's inmates. This insinuation was met by evidence that showed that the Penningtons had never quarreled with the servants in their service and there could be no motive for the crime that brought death and desolation to the Dover home. Much of the morning session yesterday was occupied with such evidence material from the necessity of establishing an ab solute proof, but uninteresting in a gen. eral sense.
 After the odds and ends had been gath cred together the prosecution began the presentation of its last phase of evidence, the expert testimony on handwriting. Two experts were placed on the witness stand and both swore that Mrs. Botkin had not only written the anonymous letters. but had addressed the package of poisoned candy. Expert Ames was the first on the witness stand and for hours he analysed the known and suspected handwriting of Mrs Botkin. The expert, after the man. ner of his trade. skeletonized the penman- ship of the accused woman and asked the iurv to believe that she had written to the unfortunate women of Dover their certih- cate of death.
 Letters and even parts of letters were discussed and presented in fac-simile on blackboard. The expert was highly tech nical and one by one the great audience began to disappear. There was no repe- tition of the sensations of the preceding day. The experts told what they had ac- complished after weeks of labor and then asked the jury to weigh with the other evidence the opinion of science that Mrs. Botxin is guilty of the crime of which she is accused.
 The cross-examination of Expert Ames by Attorney Knight might have been svmbolized in a sheer. The attorney showed that the expert will be paid for his services and as a paid agent of the prosecution is not entitled to the consid- eration that a voluntary witness would be. It was shown also that Ames had been mistaken in other cases and that all his elaborate and painstakng analyses sometimes went for naught. The defense sought only to interject the element oI doubt into the case and to show that IL IS most serious proposition to weigh hu- man life in the balance with the opliiioh of an expert on handwriting.
 The prosecution will conclude us case this morning and the defense will intro duce its first witnesses. It is hKely that Mrs. Botkin will be on the witness stand during the day
 John P. Dunning occupied seat in court when proceedings commenced Tn the morning. MT. Hosmer was apparently about to call another witness when Judge Cook asked, Where is Cunning? Let him take the stand" The recalcitrant witness stepped forward and Judge Cook ad- dressed him, saying: MT. Dunning, be- fore the adjournment of this court yes terday you were committed to prison for refusing to answer a certain question" Turning to MT. Knight he said: Do you still insist upon an answer to the ques tion?"
 "I insist" was the laconic response.
 Mir Cunning, the counsel insists upon his question: said the court Are you ready at this time to answer it?"
 No sir!' said Cunning, but I would like to make a brief statement"
 We don't want any statement" said Knight. ''We want an answer to that question-give us the names"
 Cunning was finally permitted to make his statement, which was: If I had any suspicion that any of the women whose names I might mention were responsible for the death of my wife l might feel compelled to answer. I feel assured in my own mind that not one of them is in any way connected with this case. I must still decline to answer"
 Judge Cook hesitated Q moment and sad: T am afraid that Is not a legiti-