The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1899-05-10
Interest in the Suit Increasing as the Trial
nears the End.
The Defense Rests It's Case-Sev-
eral Witnesses in Rebuttal
Placed on the Stand Yesterday
by Plaintiffs Counsel, Tending
to Impeach Testimony for the
Defense.

| w
case is increasing in interest as it draws
to close. The. plaintiff, Mrs. Mary
Helen Murdoch, was severely cross-ex-
amined by General Barnes this morning.
and all the plaintiffs witnesses in rebuff
tai are being searchingly questioned-~s
The dispositions of w. p Cahoone, G.
w. Vestal, Richard Gornon, DIR. G. w.
Westlake, Milton Dale and George Pulls
! of Red Bluff were read by Attorney
Johnson. All the answers read were
as to the reputation of Gam B. Ash
hurst, an important witness for plain
tiff, as to his truth, honesty and integ-
rity being good.
The defense was not allowed to prove
that William Murdoch had $4,000 in
the bank at the time witness Skiff said
that Murdoch had refused to pay some
| interest on the note to plaintiff
The defense announced that they
| rested.
Seth Millington, once a Judge of the
Glenn County Superior Court, testified
that he was sitting in the Courtroom at
the time T. ] Kirkpatrick was on the
witness stand, and when the affidavit
alleged to have been made to Kirkpat-
rick by Samuel Murdoch was produced
he heard Writing Expert Carl Essen
schimel say to Expert Kytka: Get
hold of that affidavit; make a photo
graph of it, and we will knock it out"
or words to that effect.
Cross examination did not affect the
testimony.
Mrs. Margaret Kirkpatrick and Mrs
Lavina j. Graves We're called, and
swore that Mrs. Murdoch. the plaintiff.
went TO Deadwood in April, 1881, to
! take treatment from a Chinese doctor,
and did not return home until July.
This was to disprove the statement of w.
,. Murdoch, VINO told of a converse ton
about Uncle Billy" between himself
and the plaintiffs held at her home in
June, 1881.
Mrs. Murdoch was then called, and
told of this trip to Deadwood She then
denied the statements made in the de-
position of Charles S. Young of San
Francisco as to her Offering him an
interest in the note, and also denied
statements attributed to herself and
husband, alleged to have been made at
the home of GAVIN Murdoc, ST., at Up
per Lake
Mr.. Barnes cross-examinedI Mrs. Muir
dock searchingly. She denied ever say
ing that the note was given to her for
love and affection. She denied saying
she had taken care of William Murdoch
during his sickness. and that the note
was given her through gratitude. She
denied telling Young that the note was
made instead of will so that it would
take precedence.
Cross examination was not concluded
" n
AT the afternoon session Alexander.
Lake was called to impeach VIM. H.
Burnight, an important witness for the
defense He testified that Burnight
told him the day he Burnight) arrived
IN WILLOWS that he was to get 500 for
testifylng, and that Mr.. Lusk was to
give him S2UO more; further, that Lusk
told him there was more money in it
for him testifying for the defense than
in shearing sheep, this latter being the
occupation of the witness.
When cross-examined by General
Barnes about the particulars of the con-
versation. the witness said Abb Merrill
had given him $40.
James Stillman testified that Burnight
had told him he was in this case for
money; that the defense had kept him
in Chico for twenty days, and that Abb
Merrill, for the defense was to give
him 500 on his arrival at Willows.
Constable J. G. Clark of Orland was
called and corroborated the statement
of Stillman.
These two witnesses were not cross
examined.
Edmund Murdoch, son of plaintiff
testified that he was at home in 1881
when W. S. Murdoch visited there: that
his mother was not at home during this
visit, but was at Deadwood.
The plaintiffs son also testified that
he was at the State Fair in September
1890. and met William Murdoch there
at that time.
The defense claims that William Muir
dock was at his ranch during Septem-
Der, 1890
GAVIN Murdoch, husband of the plain
tiff, testified as to the deed made by
William Murdoch to his wife. Mary
Helen Murdoch, dated May IA 1890 He
said he put the deed in his box in the
Bank of Orland, and that this box was
f.ae same one in which the big note had
been kept. His wife had access to the
box only through obtaining the key
from him. This is the deed front which
the defense claim the signature ON the
note was traced.
After the hearing of several other wit
nesses in rebuttal, Court adjourned.
The case may go to the jury by Satur-
day night
JOCKEY CLUB WINS.