The record-union., 1899-11-01
SERVICES OF MISS AUSTIN.
DEFENSE OFFERS TO PROVE
THEIR VALUE.
Judge Ellison Refuses to Permit
Testimony by Experts ON
That Point.

The third week of the Austin Wilcox
son case was resumed before Judge
Ellison yesterday morning. Much u
the forenoon session was consumed W
the attorneys arguing points OF Id"
which came up.
Miss Kate Plunkett OF san ram
cisco, who maintains an employment
bureau for women, was the nrSt VII
ness called. She testified that she
knew the serviceable value of a com
panion in this State. The question as
to the intrinsic value Of such services
was met with an objection from
plaintiffs attorneys, they contendine
that the court had ruled out plaintiff
offer of testimony along the same liue
at Fridays session.
II w Johnson for the defense con-
tended that he had right to prove the
intrinsic value of PLAINTIFFS services
and that his objections made Friday
had been only against proof offered By
the plaintiff to prove the value OF hel
peculiar serviceS-to show the value o.
affection, and not against proof as te
the intrinsic value of her actual SER
vices.
Attorney Fulweiler for the plaintln
contended that H. w. Johnson had Cd
jected to testimony offered on tns
ground that there could be no expe1
testimony upon the matter, and ina
the Judge alone could fix the value o.
such services.
Attorney H. W. Johnson contende'
that he had all along held the posltloi
that the plaintiff could only recover
for the actual intrinsic value of mel
services if at all. He contended ina
the court could arrive at no CONCLUSION
unless proof were made as to the actua
value of the service rendered, and ina
affection was a thing not recognized II
law, upon which a valuation might pe
fixed.
Attorney Grove L. johnson SAID tne
exigencies of the case for the de1enst
made it necessary for them to blow no
and cold at the same time. He con
tended that the objection made by him
self was precisely similar to that mace
by the attorneys for the defense ane
sustained by the court last week, ane
that if the plaintiff then was not per-
mitted to introduce expert testimony
the defendant should not be permitted
TO do so now.
Attorney White, for the defense, sale
he was prepared to prove by competent
witnesses the value of every service
given jefferson Wilcoxson by Amanda
p. Austin. except the value of affection
The defense stood ready to presen
testimony to prove the value of al
tangible services rendered-the valu
of housekeeper, nurse and companion
At Judge EIlison's suggestion the wit
ness was withdrawn until the afternoon
session, at which time he would. n
said, decide the point raised.
The defense offered in evidence tn
deposition of Estell L. Gray. taken il
Yolo County, in May, 1898 The de
ponent, it was shown, is now in Mis-
souri,.
Attorney Grove L. johnson objecte'
to the introduction of the deposition
on the ground that proper notice hat
not been given plaintiff that it was t.
be taken The attorney was sworn ant
testified that when the notice was lef
at his office he was at Willows engaged
as attorney in the Murdoch note case
He said he had come home on Frida.
after the notice was served, but tina
he had come for the purpose of con
sulting his physician.
Miss Austin testified that she wa
in Colusa County, in the vicinity o
Leesville, and could not be reached b,
telegraph when the notice was served
Attorney Fulweiler testified that h
had received notice on May 18th, in tn
hat hQ
be taken at Woodland on the Goth; tina
he was busy in the court at Auburn
and could not possibly be present a
the taking of the deposition. and ha
so Informed Attorney White.
Attorney H. W. Johnson testified tina
on May II, 1898, he interviewed Este
L. Gray at Woodland, and that sh
said she intended to leave the Stat
on Saturday, the Goth, and that he ha
so reported to White & Seymour.
Attorney White testified that he ha
communicated by telephone with MI
Fulweiler. who excused himself an
said it was impossible for him to b
present on the date fixed for taking tn
deposition.
The court sustained the objection an
the deposition was ruled out on tn
ground that sufficient time was nc
given to allow plaintiff to be present a
the taking.
At this point the attornes's for tn
plaintiff put in the cross-y -.aminatio
of Mrs. Blackwell of st. louis, Mo
whose direct testimony was read 9
Fridays session. While the readin
was still in progress a recess was take
until 1:30 D. m.
At the afternoon session Judge ELI
son sustained the objection raised b
the attorneys for the plaintiff, respect
ing the Introduction of expert evidenc
to prove the intrinsic value of the sal
vices of houSekeepers, nurses, compar
ions, etc.
The defense, however, again put Mi;
Plunkett on the stand for the purpos
of keeping the records straight. H. "
Johnson questioned the witness, OF
jections to the questions being sus
tained by the court
Thereupon the attorneys for the dc