The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1904-04-01

room ana. edCh iOunQ mis- accustomed
seat in the box. Evidently they were
puzzled by the proceedings that had
resulted IN their detention in the Gus
tody of the Sheriff. but they all APP
peared in good humor Even Goetjen
smiled broadly, although his force
abstenti0n from LIQUOR and the medical
treatment he received during the night
had put an impress of suffering on his
face When they We're seated in tIit,
box Judge Cook said:
Il understand that your witness is
still sick. afr. Byington?"
Mrs. Price is still sick: the two wit
nesses referred to yesterday are
sick
I'VE consent with the defendant"
said Knight, that the dispositions u
Mrs. Price and Miss Livernash BE-
read
DEFENDANT CONSULTED.
Judge Cook was taking no chances
or counsel and he turned TO the de-
PENDANT and asked her If she consented
to this procedure. She answered in Tile
affirmative and then the testimony 81
the two witnesses taken at. the las:
trial was read from the record.
Mrs. W. W.. Barnes was Mrs Price
in 1928 and was the landlady 0f the
Victoria Hotel in July. 1S9s, when Mrs.
Botkin roomed there. The principal
part OF her testimony related tn seeing
the defendant come into the hotel on
the afternoon Of July 81. between the
hours of and ; 20 clock. This was
the day upon which it is charged Mrs.
Botkin bought the box OF candy from
Haas & Sons shop which she is chargcJ,
with poisoning subsequently and send
ing TO Mrs. Cunning. Mrs. Price stated
that the defendant had complained Of
being i'll that day and requested that
lunch and dinner be sent to her room.
She was much surprised TO see that TIL
defendant had been out and remarked
about it at the time.
Miss Livernash was a reporter in
1898 and interviewed Mrs. Botkin in
Healdsburg and Stockton before and
after her arrest for the murder of Mrs
Dunning. Witness stated that Mrs.
Botkin had admitted her intimacy with
John p. Dunning and had given him
anything but a good character.
HER VIEWS ON CUNNING.
He is a racetrack gambler and a
spendthrift, she is alleged to have
said. He drank so hard that 1 was
compelled to support him and he prac-
tically used up all the money had"
After the arrest of Mrs. Botkin and
her arrival In this city the witness
claims to have interviewed her, dur
ing the course of which conversation
the defendant expressed great joy over
the fact that Dunning's child had not
died from partaking of the poisoned
candy.
Joshua d. Deane, husband of one of
the murdered women, was recalled and
testified that on the night of August 9,
1898, when the poisoned candy was eat
en-, his wife had not partaken of the
trout served at the evening meal and
was not in the habit of eating fish at
all This testimony was introduced to
refute theory of the defense that
the death of the two women was due
to ptomaine poisoning from eating fish
on the night they were taken i'll. When
Deane had been dismissed without
DISCRIMINATION Byington made the
announcement that the prosecution
rested.
Before allowing the prosecution to
close its case Judge Cook announced
that he would rule that the testimony
of Professor Price regarding his analy-
ses~of the candy obtained from Chief
Of Police Lees was not admissible. He
based his ruling on the fact that too
great a lapse of time had occurred
between the murders and the analyses
and that the death of Chief Lees had
precluded a proper Identification of the
candy which was subjected to tests by
Professor Price.
Attorney Knight was unwilling 20
proceed with the defense in the after
noon and on his motion an adjourn
ment was taken until this morning.
SHERIFF GUARDS JURY.
Before adjournment Judge Cook an
nounced that he would continue his
order made the previous day commit
ting the jury to the custody of the
Sheriff. Then he turned to the jury
and delivere the following instruc-
tons:
Now. gentlemen Of the jury before adjourn
ing at this time, wish again to admonish you
now that no juror should draw any conclusion
either for or against either party in this action
by reason of the courts action in ordering the
jury into custody for the remainder of this
trial. The law imposes upon the Judge of
court discretion which he may exercise at
any time during the trial, either to allow the
jury 10 separate at each adjournment or 10
keep them together. II is within the power of
the court TO keep jurors together from the time
a juror is sworn until a jury Is completed
The law provides that at any time during the
course of the trial that the Judge sees At to
exercise that discretion he do so. either
allow the jury TO separate on the adjournment
or TO keep them together in the custody OF a
sworn officer. In this case yesterday it was
stated here in the presence OF the jury-the
court was asked in the presence of the Jury
IL there was any reason for its action in maxi
ing this order: the Judge stated at that time
Of course there was reason. The court is
not in the habit Of acting without some reason
but you must not consider that reason TO reflect
either on the people or on the defense. The
court often hears matters that don't come 10
the ears Of the jury and such matters NAV
cause the court out OF precaution 10 prevent
anything happening which ought not to han
pen.
As said yesterday, nothing has come to the