The San Francisco call., 1898-12-17
MRS. MENTEL Swearing to Tell the Truth About the Murder of Her Husband.

held her to answer before the Superior Court. Despite the strenuous efforts of the defendant attorneys, the Judge re- fused to admit her to bail. As soon as the shorthand reporters notes of the tes- timony can be transcribed her attorneys will attempt 10 secure her release on writ of habeas corpus.
 Mrs. Mentel went on the witness stand in her own behalf. She told the story of the shooting and related the circum- stances leading up to the quarrel which terminated in her husbands death. Her attorneys confined their questions to her acts in the immediate vicinity of the tragedy, and when the prosecution un- dertook to cross-examine her on occur rences remote from the scene of the shooting the court sustained the objec- tions of the defense, which prevented the District Attorney from rawing any testi- mony from Mrs Mentel except that fa- iVorable to her plea of self-defense.
 Mrs Mentels demeanor was a study in Istoicism. he did not evince the least emotion, and told the story of the shoot ing as though 1t was commonplace af- Ifair. There was the least evidence of braggadocio about 1t all when she de- ecribed without falter how she drew her pistol, pointed it at her husband and began firing 1t at him as fast as her finger could work the trigger. Nor was there a tremor in her voice. Her answers were clear and distinct, and the only evidence lof suppressed excitement was a continual tapping together of the tips of her fingers She stuck to her original story that her husband had assailed her; that with curses he had thrown her to the ground and then, in Self-defense and in fear of her life, she had shot him to death. She answered the questions of her attorneys without hesitation and readily gave the most minute details of the tragedy In marked contrast were her replies to the iQueries of the prosecution. Her memory ha dropped her eyes, tapped her forehead lnervously, as though trying to recall to mind the circumstances of the tragedy and then avoided direct answer by re- plying that she was so excited that night she could not remember what she had ldone. Never once did she refer to the just plain Mentel.
 we had been quarreling for some min- uteS before we reached the scene of the shooting" she said. Tt started over a conversation concerning our marriage. demanded the marriage certificate and in- sisted upon him giving it to me. He re- piled the ceremony was a farce and that we were not man and wife. 1 threatened to go to his sister and appeal to her to plead with him to do me justice and treat me honorably. He flew into a passion at my persistence, called me vile names and struck me. The conversation continued as we walked along. He struck me again and l fell to the ground. As lay there he stood over me cursing. He told me if l opened my mouth again on the subject of our marriage he would kill me l in sisted was only asking what was right rand he said: I will end you nown He grabbed for my throat. and as he did so l pulled the pistol from a pocket in my cape and began firing In his direction I do not remember how many shots fired I just pulled the trigger as fast as I could work 1t. did not see him fall. nor do I remember having turned the pistol on myself. It all came so suddenly and I was e~ ---z excited that I don't know what happened after l began firing"
 In answer to the questions of the Dis trict Attorney. she said she had carried the pistol for long time to protect her self. Mentel had threatened her before, she said, and she was. afraid of him.
 "Is 1t not fact" asked the District At the intention of shooing your husband if he did not comply with your request for the marriage certificate?'
 ] "I did not" was the firm reply.
 She said they were very close together when she began firing, but could not re- member whether she was standing or lying where she had fallen from her hus- bands blows
 "I don't know where I shot him but I shot him lots of times, she said
 It was admitted in evidence that the couple had been married at 396 South Sixth street. San Jose, November 2. 1898, by City Justice Class. It was also ad . mitted that the license was issued in the name of William Fred Menten and Anna Beth, but that the deceased had sub scribed his correct name to the affidavit
 pr. s. H. Buteau, who assisted at the autopsy. and Constable George Gray, who assisted in taking the defendant to the Receiving Hospital the night of the trag-