The San Francisco call., 1898-02-12
PROSECUTION
 SCORES A POINT
Embezzlement Evidence Vir- tually Admitted in the
 Figel Case.
However, Judge Cook Allows the Defense to Make Any Objections
 Thought Necessary.

At 10 o'clock yesterday morning the Judge, jury and counsel in the Figel case visited the store of Hoffman, Rothchild E Co.,, where the shooting occurred on the evening of June l. The trip was made for the purpose of viewing the alleged bullet hole in the wall in the office which ad- Joined the telephone room. The previous day Officer Russell was to have testified as to the hole in the wall, but it was de- cided to first allow the jury to view the premises. After arriving at the store the party viewed the hole in the wall and then returned to the courtroom.
 It had been agreed that the jury and witnesses should be excused until Monday morning at 10 o'clock. After a short re- cess the argument concerning the admis- sion of evidence in the embezzlement cases was resumed by Judge Murphy The argument was based decisions rendered in cases similar to the one now at bar, but the defense contended that the cases referred to brought out the vital point that evidence concerning em- bezzlements. forgery or robbery was ad- mitted in murder cases only where it had been shown that the deceased had lnti- mated that he was aware of either one or the other felonious acts or the ac- cused.
 It was further argued that the evi. dence in the embezzlement cases could not be admitted to prove motive for the destruction of Isaac Hoffman, as that destruction did not tend to destroy the evidence of the crime now charged against the defendant.
 "One cannot give evidence" said Gen. eral Barnes, ..ot an alleged motive where no corpus delicti is proved and where no evidence is given to show that the de- fendant committed crime, and 1t IS not competent evidence, as no benefit could accrue to the accused of the alleged
 After mentioning some facts and incl dents of the case Judge Cook in conclu- sion said: Tn this case evidence has been given tending to show a homicide. It has been suggested that it might have been suicide, but were a special verdict to be called for and should such verdict find homicide to have been committed by some one it could not be set aside. as there IS evidence to support it. So far the evil dence shows that it may have been a homicide and it may have been a suicide. The finding of the jury only can deter mine this fact. The weight of that evil dence is for the jury to determine. Then in determining who committed the homi- eide the relations of the parties would be clearly relevant. If the prosecution can prove as they claim they can, that the defendant was defaulter to the firm of the deceased and to cover up his defalca- tions and embeZZlementS had forged q paper which purported to evidence that he had paid the amount of such defalca- tion to the deceased, there would be the strongest motive possible for so sealing the lips of the deceased that he could not dispute the signature to the paper or deny the receipt of the money. That mo- tive taken in connection with the ability of the defendant to have committed the crime and the recent ownership by him of the weapon with which the crime was committed if proved would tend strongly ferred to by the judge while giving the decision on the important issue of the days session.