The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1899-05-06
Plaintiffs Counsel WithdraWs OBJ
lection of Thursday
In Regard TO Bringing in Of Evidence In
peaching Ashurst's Integrity.
Indications That the Trial is Near
ing the End-Believed the De-
Tense Will Close Their Case
After the Completion Of the
Reading of Dispositions.

WILLOWS, May 5.-This forenoon
the iplaatiff in the Murdoch case with
drew the objection of yesterday in re-
gard to the bringing in of evidence to
impaach the reputation of Cam Ashurst
for truth, honesty and veracity.
The dispositions of Samuel Lewis. L..
Champlin, C. E. Fish and several other
old and we'll known residents of Red
Bluff were read. The Opponents all tes-
titled that the reputation of Ashurst for
truth, honesty and veracity were not
good.
The court refused to allow the depo-
sition of c. r. Mayhem to be admitted,
as Mayhem had been in court yestar-
day and testified, and therefore could
not be put on again
Attorney Lusk said that Mayhem had
returned to Red Bluff, and could not be
brought back against his will. ana filed
an exception to the ruling of the court.
After the reading of the dispositions,
Theodore Kytka was recalled to :den-
tify certain entries in the pocketbook
of Murdoch as the handwriting of Muir
dock. Kytka said the writing was
genuine.
The book was offered in evidence by
eAAV 0SAOAoC, III lI1S Pun pOSG VI StlON
ing that Murdoch had made no entry
in the same in regard to the note in
question, and further to prove that GER
tain men had gone to work for Muir
dock on September ). 1877, being the
date the note is alleged 10 have been
signed.
The plaintiff objected, and the objec-
ton was sustained.
foro.axr tho, bo~a, +l,o
reading of the deposition of N. w. Con-
nor, proprietor Of hotel in Los An
geles, but who resided in San Fran
cisco in 1890 and 1891 Conner knew L.
s. Megginson, Delos Pratt and Mr.. Nc
Carthy.
The deponent was asked: During
your residence in San Francisco. did you
meet al lady by the name OF Mary Helen
Murdock?'
The question was objected to by
Johnson. and the time up . adjourn
ment at noon was consumed in The ar
gument
At the afternoon session General
Barnes resumed his argument in favor
Of allowing deponent Conner of Los An
geles to answer the question In regard
to whether or not he had met Mary
Helen Murdoch during his residence in
San Francisco in the years 1890 ard
1891
johnson followed for the plaintiff, ar
guing that the question should not be
allowed to be ans wered.
A decision will be rendered in the
forenoon tomorrow. If the defense
gets an adverse decision, a great deal
OF their testimony viii be thrown out
General Barnes read part OF the de-
position of c. S. Young. q real estate
agent of San Francisco, who stated
that he had seen The note in 1890 in
the Arlington Hotel. San Fra ncisco He
said he had gone there with j. S. Meg
ginson to see Mrs. Murdoch about al
lowing them to collect the note for one
fourth of its value. Mrs Murdoch
agreed to this
What did you and Megginson do
with the note?" was asked
We consulted three lawyers
Did you report their conclusions to
Mrs. Murdock?"
We did -
The plaintiff objected to such testi-
mony, as Megginson and Young had
not been proven to be Mrs Murdock's
agents for the note.
After a lengthy argument. the obiec-
ton was sustained
1t is understood that the defense will
close their case after the completion of
the reading of dispositions.