The San Francisco call., 1905-04-27
VERDICT RESTS,
ON PUBLICATION
Attorneys for Florence M.
Boyere Seek to Prove That
She Was Not Responsible
COURT WARNS LAWYERS
Bitter Filings Result in Ad-
monition That They Con-
duct Themselves Properly

Attorney William F. Hanlon battied
all day yesterday to maintain that
the removal from the office of the
County Clerk of papers in the
case Of Whittel VS. Boyere was not
responsible for the discovery of the ro-
nance in which the young people were
principals. After much argument on
the point Hanlon was placed on the
stand by Miss Boyere's counsel and
asked .egarding the removal of the
papers III the case. He said lie took the
papefs from the office of the County
Ciei under authorization of the court.
All CT this was brought out in an eff
tort 70 show that IT was Hanlon's acts
that caused the publication of the facts
oi the Whittell-Boyere affair, and that
hence he has no right at this time to
repudiare the agreement to pay Miss
l5oyere $500 in event the story was kept
from the public press.
Ihe morning session was marked by
few bitter nings of counsel, which
called down upon them the warning
OF the court that under no circurn
stances would unIawyerlilSe conduct
be permitted. The first intimation of
the FEELING between counsel came when
Attorney l. /. Brown representing Miss
Royere. asked Attorney Owens, who
was on the stand, whether he, as
MISS Boyere's counsel during the trial
OF the annullment suit, was a party to
the plan to secretly remove the papers
IN the case from the Office of the Coun-
ty Clerk to keep them from the press.
L object" said Hanlon, springing
to his feet The purpose of thatsques-
ton Is to cast an aspersion upon
me. The matter of the removal of the
papers was thrashed out before Judge
Trout, and there is no need of offer
ing new offense to me- Judge Hunt
sustained the objection.
Attorney Owens continued his tes-
timony, and said that prior to the
signing of the agreement upon which
Miss Boyere is suing Attorney Han
lon 1t was understood that the agree
ment was to be void only in event she
herself gave the facts of her alleged
contract marriage to Whittell to the
press.
attorney Han,sn failed to draw an
ad1n1ssion from him tlat it was under
stood that the contract was to be void
TO matter how the f:lcts became I.ub-
lie. in event they did. owens main
tanning that any conversation to that
effect took place after the agreement
lad been signed and delivered and the
compact closed beyond amendment.
George Whittell Sr., father of the
alleged contract groom, was next call
placed so500 to Hanlon's credit in the
DoHehoe-K Kelly Bank, $1,000 of which
sum was drawn on November 5. 1903,
and paid to Miss Boyere. The S25O0
WhitteH said, was to pay all expenses
OF all the suits, as we'll as to pay the
demands of Miss Boyere. The figure
of settlement with Miss Boyere he
said, was not s250e; but this sum was
placed in Hanlon's hands for fear that
it might run to that amount. por-
ton of the money, he said. was still
In Hanlon's hands, final accounting
of the cost of young Whittell's venture
matrimonial not yet having been made.
When Whitten left the stand Attor-
ney Hanlon made a motion for a nom
suit. Ffe argued at length that the
plaintiff had not established case and
that he should be dismissed with his
costs. The court granted a. nonsuit as
to Nhe claim for money received, but
refused a nonsuit on the claim under
the contract.
1t was thought the case would be
concluded yesterday morning, but the
argument of counsel occupied so
much time that continuance until
this morning was necessary