The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1904-03-29

kin write during the year 1898, iden-
tined her signature on money orders
made payable TO her which she had
cashed with them. When Raymond
was giving his testimony Mrs. Botkin
leaned far over TO Attorney knight
and inquired in a plainly audible
voice:
Was that my double?"
District Attorney Byington jumped
to the conclusion that the remark was
intended for the jury and rose to
protest. After he had voiced il Mrs
Botkin shifted CONTEMPORARY and
Knight sneered and let the matter
drop. This was the only time the
peace of the day was disturbed.
Detective Ed Gibson. who arrested
Mrs. Botkin at Stockton in the latter
part of August, 1898, on a charge of
murder, was next called. He accom-
panied Captain Seymour to the room
once occupied by Mrs. Botkin at the
Victoria Hotel and took part in the
investigation there. He corroborated
Captain Seymour in his statements
and denied that he had left any por-
ton of a Haas & Sons seal in the
room for future discovery.
William Rosello, who claims to
have found the seal introduced in
evidence, was the next witness. He
described finding the seal under the
Barnes, then a clerk at the Victoria
Hotel, on September Z, 1898. He said
1t was under the couch, and explained
the apparent oversight of the detec-
tives by stating that 1t was under the
fringe of the rug and not readily dis
cernible. He thought that the rug
had been partly turned in moving
the couch On cross-examination the
witness grew indefinite and uncertain.
He was not sure whether or not the
couch had been moved at ALL and
couldn't state for certain whether the
torn seal was under the rug or just at
the edge of it. 1t was also developed
that the witness had talked to Barnes
after the latter had rendered his tes-
timony last Friday and had also read
Barnes testimony in the newspapers.
DUNNING APPEARS.
Next came John P. Dunning and in
terest revived among the spectators.
Dunning walked into the courtroom
placidly and any emotion he felt over
the situation was carefully masked.
Not SO with the defendant. From the
time of his entrance until he was final
ly dismissed from the stand she
scarcely took her eyes from him. ex-
cept to consult the transcript of the
testimony given at the last trial Dun
ming for the most part carefully. avoid
ed her gaze, but would occasionally
send a wavering look in her direction,
which was quickly withdrawn before
her tense inspection.
Under questions of the District At
torney he told the story of his ac-
quaintance with the defendant and the
details of it were not a particularly
pleasant recital. He first met her ia
1884 or 1895, when he was residing
in this city with his wife and child.
She was first known to him as Ade-
laide Kirk, but within a short time
he learned that her name was Cordelia
Botkin and that she had a husband
living in Stockton. He detailed at
length all the changes of residence the
defendant had made during their ac-
quaintance and how he had been
constant visitor at each place. Even
on the direct examination the infer
ence was plain that the relations be-
tween the two were criminal.
In 1897, the defendant said, he went
to Salt Lake, where he worked on
paper. During that time he received
from Mrs. Botkin many letters and
often wrote to her. He had seen her
write many times during their
acquaintance and said he was fa-
miliar with her handwriting. He
identified as being the handwriting of
the defendant the address on the
wrapper of the box of poisoned candy
received by his wife at Dover and also
said that in his opinion the two anony-
nous letters sent to Mrs. Dunning and
introduced into evidence were also the
work of Mrs. Botkin. He recognized