Los Angeles herald., 1905-02-10
JUDGE WAS DRUNK
ASSERTS WITNESS
COMMITTEE HEARS CHARGES
AGAINST TORRANCE
Riverside Jurist Does Not Appear In
the Role Assigned Him by the
Proseeutlon-Ads Defend-
ants Cause

mony he was in reality regarded as
one Of Judge Torrances strongest wit.
nesses
The Riverside Judge told OF his con.
nection with the Gay divorce case
The examination Of Judge Noyes con-
sumed almost the entire afternoon ses-
sion, and repeatedly wrangle ensued
over the exact meaning conveyed by
his testimony.
He testified that Torrance told him
that affidavits had been filed which dis
qualified him from hearing the appeal
in the Gay case, and he also declared
that Judge Torrance told him that the
affidavits involved the regularity of the
proceedings.
"If anybody had asked me three or
four days after the conversation l had
with Judge Torrance If he had said
anything favorable to Mr.. Gay l would
have said yes" testified the witness.
Now 1 would say that he did not,
unequivocally declared Judge Moves.
The witness testified that Torrance
urged him to give a decision in con-
nection with the appeal in the Gay
case, saying that they" were trying
to make trouble for him in the legis-
lature.
II read the records in the Gay case
two or three times and it was difficult
for me to keep from telling the judge
my decision in the case" said Judge
Noyes.
Prosecution Rests
The attorneys for the prosecution
failed to draw from the witness any
testimony exceedingly damaging to
the cause of the San Diego judge, and
the prosecution rested on direct eX-
animation
The wise men say that when judge
cross examines judge beware, but the
unexpected came to pass yesterday
and the proceedings were not dis
turbed.
Judge Torrance, in his own behalf,
conducted the cross-eXamination of
the Riverside judge, and after a long
and tedious examination he succeeded
in adding additional strength to his
case.
Did l say that it would be an abuse
OF my judicial discretion to try those
affidavits myself?" asked Judge Tor
rance.
Yes, you did" replied the witness.
He then admitted that Judge Torrance
in his conversation did not refer to the
Gay case in an argumentative way.
Tho thrnno nf lau- iuHyne
who were seated about the court room
were next treated to surprise when
Judge Noyes declared that Torrance
had not made any effort whatsoever to
influence his mind in connection with
the Gay divorce case.
Judge Noyes testified that he was
apprehensive of results whenever the
San Diego judge came within talking
distance, but on cross examination yes
terday he even admitted that his fears
were groundless.
Attorneys WrangIe
A wrangle then ensued wherein At
torney Anderson was not entirely sat-
isfied with the cross examination by
Attorney Shortridge
''T am not accusing your association
of prosecuting in bad faith declared
Shortridge. You have been misled-
grossly mised''
The next surprise in order was the
statement made by Attorney Ander-
son, VINO said
II think the statements of Judge
Noyes differ from what L expected him
to testify
The Riverside judge materially quail
fed certain statements made in let
ter dated January last, addressed to
Attorney Newly of Los Angeles, and he
placed an entirely different construc-
ton upon his language than did the