The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-01-01
COURTROOM MAS CROWDED.
MEs AND WOMEN RUSH TO HEAR
THE BARLOW CASE.
spend the Day Listening With AVG
fty fe Disssstisg Details Dragged
F~rth by the Cress-Exausinaff"n
Frem q Girl Wifness on the stand.

Special Dispatch 70 the Poss-I1telligences-
TACOMA, Dec. 3i--It was a period or
snnIngs 81 favor Gf the defendant al the
Harrow xe6ue;lon case today, the chief
wlfress for the prosecution. Mrs Maggie
Barrow. being On tie rack under rigid
eross-examinatton that damaged her tes-
Slneay 10 no small degree. The same
Jam Of visitors. men and women alike,
wss q feature Of me session. and stand
ing roam was 81 a premium from early
morning up 10 the close OF proceedings.
Frequent arguments between attorneys,
brief. but presented with much yigor. oc-
casionea periods OF rest for the witness
and 40 damaging statement Was allowed
To BE- made by her under the cross-exa1m-
sgatton without a hot wordy contest.
What more than anything else served
70 make q bad impression as coming from
the witness WIS the Introduction in evi-
aierace and the reading Of d letter she mad
arfttef to Leslie Grimm. q country friend.
wniEs she was lfyiag and going 20 school
IN Tacoma. The letter was In effect that
she tthe writer had been 10 the White
Shield Home. where she had been exam
ined. and that nothing was physically
found wrong with her. In nowise choice
language she informed her correspondent
she was called brick" in Tacoma. and
went on to impart other similar items Cf
interest.
She admitted having written the letter
after she knew she had become mother.
and that her statement 10 the young mai
TN the country was entirely false.
In d clever manner, but one that caused
no end OF opposition from the proseca-
ton. the witness was led To admit that
her alleged seducer had never been adj
yised OF her condition until about six
months after she herself had discovered
il. She said she hadn't the courage TO
tell him about Il, but admitted that for
some time after her discovery of her con-
ditlon she continued TO hold Illicit inter-
course with the defendant.
The witness told nothing particularly
rev under the cross-examinasson,a and has
plainly grown hardened &c the ordeal she
IL undergoing. She in many instances
eieyeriy evaded answering questions 30
her detriment. and when eornefed smiled
blandly, and all at once could not posi-
bly, remember the particular matter IN
question. An interesting point grew out
OF certain questions fruni one Of the de-
lenses attorneys. who had acted as her
lawyer UP To the time she decided 10 be-
Feme witness for the state. He an
nounced In putting these questions that
the Information he DESIRED TO bring out
was Impaired to him by the witness prior
- his engagement las her attorney, but
the court allowed the witness the privi-
iegs OF refusing 20 answer. and she rea l.
iiy took advantage of IT,
She denied that when the younger Bar
tow came 10 her to make terms he adj
fnitted that IL was he who had caused her
trouble. not his father. and that she so
understood the entire conversation. In
many strong points her direct testimony
was more or less weakened by cross
examination. but In others II remained
unshakeu. The defense had not finished
its questioning when the time arrived for
adjournment. and the witness will again
take the stand Monday morning