The record-union., 1899-11-03
MOTION TO REOPEN DENIED.
PLAINTIFF DISCOVERED A NEW
WITNESS.
More Testimony for the Defense In
the Austin-Wilcoxson
Case.

the Austin
When the Austin Wilcoxson case was
resumed before Judge Ellison yester-
day morning, Attorney Grove L. John-
son rose in his place and said:
I'VE desire to move to reopen the
case for the plaintiff, for the purpose Oh
admitting the evidence of Mrs. q. 3.
Stevenson, and we are ready to olfef
proof that until recently we had no
knowledge that Mrs. Stevenson knew
anything whatever about the case.
To make such proof the plaintiff took
the stand and testified that she desired
the case reopened in order that MRS.
Stevenson might be permitted to tes-
tify; that she only recently learned,
through Mrs. James Faris of this city,
that Mrs Stevenson knew anything
about the case; that she had met Mrs.
Stevenson only once, years ago, and
that until she received the letter from
Mrs. Faris she had entirely forgotten
that she existed.
Mrs. G. B. Stevenson of Oakland
being sworn, testified that from 1873
to 1881 she lived in this State, at
Placerville that during the latter year
she went to Ell Paso, Tex. and re-
turned to California two years ago.
Since which time she had lived in Oak
land. She saw mention of the case on
trial in the newspapers, and wrote Miss
Austin, through her cousin, Mrs. James
Faris, that if her testimony would be
eI,a n
come and give it. The letter was pro-
duced and read, and was to the eject
that Jefferson Wilcoxson had told the
writer and her husband in the course
of conversation held shortly after
plaintiff came to California, "That you
amanda p AuStin) We're now his child
that you had come to California with
the understanding and determination
to live with him and care for him as
his own child as long as he lived, and
when he died you We're to be hand
somely provided for, as under the stip-
ulation, you were to be his largest lega-
tee"
Witness said that prior to writing the
letter she had told no one what she
knew about the matter, and had not
known of any litigation until she read
of it in the newspapers.
Mrs. James FariS was sworn and tes-
titled that she first learned that Mrs.
Stevenson knew something about the
case on Monday last, when she received
the letter from her. to Miss Austin.
Witness said that upon receiving the
letter she opened telephone communi-
cation with Miss Austin and informed
her of it's contents. She said
she had never mentioned the case
to Mrs. Stevenson, either in a. conver-
sation or by letter, as she did not know
the latter knew anything about it.
Upon the showing made Attorney
Grove L. Johnson requested that the
case be reopened, submitting that the
materiality of the evidence was self
evident. He thought that to deny the
motion would be to rule out evidence
of the greatest Importance to the plain
tiff.
Attorney H. w. Johnson objected to
the reopening of the case on the ground
that due diligence had not been shown
by the plaintiff. He contended that
the present was not a proper time for
the exercise of the discretion of the
court; that it was not a matter which
appealed to the court; that due dill
gence had not been shown by the
plaintiff and that the evidence, if ad-
mitted, would be cumulative and not
corroborative.
Grove L. Johnson said the evidence
it was sought to introduce was not
cumulative, but corroborative of the
very contract itself He called atten-
tion to the fact that two witnesses only
had testified concerning the alleged
contract, and this, the third one, would,
he thought, prove the contract, and her
testimony would be stronger than
that of either the mother or the father
of the plaintiff had been He regarded
the evidence as being of vital import
ance. The plaintiff, he said was will
ing that the defence should have an
adjournment of the case, if they de-
sired it. to permit them to examine
concerning the credibility of the wit
ness.
Judge Ellison said he thought the
proposed evidence was merely cumula-
tive, and denied the motion to reopen
the case.
Then Attorney Grove L. Johnson in
sisted, inasmuch as the letter had
permitted to place Mrs. Stevenson on
the stand to testify that her state
ments set forth in the letter We're true
and that she would have so testified
had her evidence been admitted by the
court.
An objection was overruled, and Mrs
Stevenson was sworn and testified that
the statements in the letter written by
her We're true. and that she would sc
have testified had the case been re-
opened.
Then the attorneys for the plaintiff
proceeded to read the cross-examina-
tion of the deposition of Lulu Wilcox
son, taken at st. Louis, Mo-, prior tc
the opening of the case, and the depo-
sition, which for the past several days
had been administered in homeopathic
doses, was finally disposed of.
c. F. Silva of this city, formerly fore
man of the Vernon ranch in Yolo Coun-
ty. once owned by Jefferson Wilcoxson
was the next witness called. He left
the employ of Mr. Wilcoxson in 1871
or 1878. Prior to that time deceased
had been in good health, except on one
occasion when his foot or ankle wa