The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-05-10
CLAIMED He WAS
PAID TO TESTIFY
Alleged Admission of a
Witness.
Special Dispatch to The Call.

WILLOWS, May 9.-The Murdoch
note case is drawing to a close. When
court convened this morning Mr.. Lusk
said he desired to prove by Witness W.
P. Harrington that William Murdoch
had $500 in bank in May, 1890. This,
the attorney said. was to contradict the
testimony of Witness Skiff, who sWore
that Mrs. Mary Helen Murdoch had
asked Uncle Billy" for the payment OF
interest on the note and that he had re-
fused. Attorney Johnson objected to
such testimony, and his objection was
sustained.
Adam Compton was called, and Mi.
Lusk handed to him a note for S24,0 900,
made by William Murdoch to man
named Singletary. Mr.. Compton was
asked why this note was given. Mr..
Lusk said he wished to show that the
note was given, not for money loaned,
but as a part payment on the Gavin
ranch Attorney Johnson's objection
was sustained and Mr.. Compton was
excused.
Mr.. Lusk said that with the exception
of two witnesses the defense was ready
to rest Johnson wanted to know the
names of these two witnesses, but the
court would not allow 1T. with thls
understanding the defense rested
Seth Wilmington was called. He said
he had been Judge of the Glenn County
Superior Court He was present IN
court when Witness T. j. Kirkpatrlck
testified; he heard the testimony OF
Kirkpatrick and remembered the am
davit purporting to have been made TO
Kirknatrick bv Samuel Murdoch. At
the time of the giving of this testimony
he heard Expert Carl Eisenschlmel say
to Expert Theodore Kytka; Get thaC
affidavit Kytka; take photograph OF
it and We'll knock it out, or words 10
that effect.
Mrs. Mary Helen Murdoch the plain
tiff. was called and told of having gone
to Deadwood in April, 1881, returning
home in July. Attorney Johnson sald
that all this was to contradict the les
timony of w. S. Murdoch, who had re-
lated certain conversations of plalntlt
to him at her home during June, 1881
The witness denied having conNerSeu
with c. S. Young and l.. ,. MegSlhsoH
at the Arlington, in San francisco. one
never spoke of this note to Young. She
said she had heard the testimony OF
George G. Murdoch, Mrs. Lizzie smith
and Mrs. Ellen Murdoch. She remem-
bered having been at the MurdocK
home at Upper Lake. but she never
made the remarks about Uncle Billy
attributed to her by these witnesses.
Mrs Murdoch denied that she ana
and returned with $4,000 in money which
was to he a make believe" payment
on the note She also denied any knoWl-
edge Of a consultation with attorneys
held by Young and Megginson as to
the note. She said she did not go to the
bank, and never offered Young a half
interest in the note if he would attend
to the collection Of it
Alexander Lake was called for the
plaintiff He lives in Clarkes Valley
He testified that two weeks ago Vii
liam H Burnight, a witness for the de
Tense, told him in front of Putnam &
Walkers drug store that he was to get
800 for testifying in the case, and that
Mr.. Lusk was to give him 5000 more.
He further said that Mr.. Lusk told him
there was more money III testifylng in
this case than in shedring sheep IN
Montara, where he intended going.
James Stillman was called He has
been employed by GAVIN MurdocH tcr
about nine years. He came down on
the train with Witness William II. Bur
night the day before Burnight testified
At that time Burnight said that he was
i'm the case for money; that he had been
kept in Chico for twertY days by Mr.
Lusk and that Merrill was to give him
500 on his arrival at WILLOWS.
Constable ]. G.. Clark was called and
corroburated the testimony of Stillman
These two witnesses were not cross-eX-