The record-union., 1899-05-09
Attorney Lusk Announces That Defense
Will Probably Conclude To-Day.
Judge Pirkey Sustains the Objec-
ton of Plaintiffs Counsel in
Relation to Questions Asked
Witnesses Pratt and O'Connor
That Stuff cient Identification of
Mrs. Murdoch Had Not Been
Proved.


great Murdoch note trial increases as
the end approaches. Day by day Wis
itors sit and attentiveiy listen to the
proceedings until Kytka begins to ar
range his one gun battery upon the
signatures, or Lusk, in his cold, sep
ulchral tone of voice, commences to
read forty-page deposition
The court did not convene until il
o'clock this morning, on account of the
train being late and delaying three of
the Jurors.
The Judge announced that in regard
to the question, Have you ever met
Mary Helen Murdock?" asked by Delos
Pratt and w. w. Conner, he had come
to the conclusion that objection of
plaintiff that sufficient identification
had not been proved should be sus-
tanned.
But continued the court, Il do not
want to work any hardship upon the
defense, for l know this is an import
ant point, so | will permit you to put
either L. S. Megginson or Mrs. Muir
dock on the stand to prove Mrs. Muir
docks identity; or l will allow you to
| take the deposition over; or, if you
want to have witnesses here in. person,
will adjourn for four or five days to
give you time to procure them
Attorney Lusk said the defense would
have to have time to consider the last
offer of the court, but objected to his
ruling.
Lusk then read several questions and
answers in the deposition Of Pratt
which did not come under the scope of
the last ruling of the court. These
questions We're merely on matters il
regard to his identification of the note
| handed him by one of the attorneys
as the one he saw in the Arlington
Hotel in 1890 Deponent said it was
| the same note. Following this, ques-
ton after question was asked by the
defense in regard to the conversation
the witness had with Mrs. MURDOCH
but We're all ruled out by the court.
! Before the noon adjournment the at
j torneys for the defense asked the at
! torneys for the plaintiff if providing
| the defense should retake the deposi-
tions of Pratt and Conner. Mrs. Muir
dock would be there before the de-
ponents in person for identification.
| Attorneys Lusk and Johnson became
belligerent after the noon recess.
Johnson said the plaintiff declined t.
be present at the taking of the new
nor, in order to assist in the identit-
cation, but would agree to pay the ex-
penses of these three witnesses if they
would appear and testify in court
/ Iusk then said that if the plaintiff s
counsel would admit that photo
graph recently taken here of Mrs. Muir
depositions would be taken at once.
This was declined, and Lusk began
to dictate statement to the court re-
porter, but was stopped, and the Judge
ordered the jury to be taken to his
chambers by the Sheriff. Attorney Lusk
then stated fatty that the defense
claimed and believed the note to be a
forgery. forgery by and with the con-
sent of plaintiff, and that l.. S. Meg
ginson was a party to 1t.
Attorney Johnson denounced the
statement as cowardly, and asked that
it be stricken from the record This
was not done, however.
When the jury returned Mr.. Lusk
again took up the readings of deposi-
lions. but only a few answers were al
lowed to be read.
The dispositions of NJ w Conner, ].
F. Turner, James P. Mccarthy and
Thomas r. Dunn, all of San Francisco,
were taken up. All the questions re-
lated to meetings with Mrs. Mary
Helen Murdoch and acquaintanceship
with L. S. MegginsOn, and to the al
legged Offering of an interest in the
note to some of these parties.
GAVIN Murdoch, husband of the
plaintiff was called by the defense
and asked as to whether certain prop
erty assessed to him in the years 1877
and 1877 was partnership property Of
himself and father.
The witness answered YES"
Attorney Lusk stated that in all
probability the defense would rest to-
morrow