Amador ledger., 1906-06-22

His brother was unable to read O.
write-he was iIliterate-and as
consequence he was called upon t,
read letters written by the accused
to her husband while she lived aparI
from him.
Letters we're shown the witness anG
identified by him as ones he read to
Jean LIE Doux written by his wife
the accused. The letters introduced
were of the ordinary style touching
upon facts of interest to the parties
and naturally containing many words
of endearment. The first commenced
in this fashion: Sweetheart: Well.
my dear and others shown to the
witness were similar in composition.
The unwilling absence of the
loving wife evidently made "the heart
grow fonder" and she soothed the
husband IS 1uffled spirits with polite
and genteel application of terms oi
affection.
Upon objection of attorney Fairall
one of the letters was kept from the
jury upon the ground it had been
written before marriage.
In the afternoon session a contro-
versy arose between the attorneys for
the respective parties regarding the
identity of the signature attached to
a telegram purported to have been
made and signed by Mrs LIE Doux.
Joseph E. Healey was called by the
district attorney to identify the sig.
nature. He was handed the telegram
and asked if the signature was that
of the defendant. He thereupon took
from his pocket small strip of paper
which evidently contained the name
of the accused written by herself and
made comparison, after which he
said 1t was his belief that the sig
nature was that of Mrs LIE Doux.
Attorney Fairall again examined
the witness as to whether or not he
was prejudiced against the defendant.
Here Healey said he was "a little put
out" and further 81 am here for the
1t appeared that Attorney Fairall
had spoken with Mr. Healey and had
made an engagement with him at his
office in the evening. Healey agreed
to speak about the case with the attor-
ney. Later in the day it developed
that district attorney Norton had seen
Healey and upon being advised of the
appointment with attorney tairall he
advised Mr. Healey not to speak with
him except upon the stand.
He scored the papers and said they
had done him an injustice in the
manner they had connected his name
with the defendant. The witness
olanched out on lengthy explana-
lion of why he refused to keep his
with attorney FairalI.
Several kilograms purported to have
been sent by the accused to the de-
'eased were introduced in evidence.
Witnesses from Sutter Creek and
Stockton identified the messages. One
of them was to McVicar and said,
What is the matter. No mail"
f. W. Ely, manager of the John
8reuner Company, told of the trans
action between that company and the
defendant and A. N. McVicar regard
ng bill of furniture amounting to
S12l.65 which was purchased and or
lered shipped to jamestown, but
which order was afterwards counter
Other witnesses were George A.
Atherton, Jennie Hoffman, Miss
Belle Quinn, James Story, j. b.
5chonhoff. James Ii. Sharon, Jackson
Dennis and Harry Morris.
Of the proceedings Monday the San
Francisco Chronicle says:
The most important evidence was
that of Chemist r. r. Rodgers, who
testified that man could live in the
trunk in evidence, hermetically seal
ed, for from twenty to thirty minutes;
except for food and
water, IN the condition in which the
trunk was found.
Cross examination brought out that
the witness had remained in the trunk
forty minutes this morning without
under similar con-
ditions, with regard to clothing, as
had obtained in the case of McVicar
Rodgers had taken his pulse and
every three minutes, and
talked with the district attorney, and
enough light came in through the
cracks to permit him to read the
and tell the time.
The defense opened its case with
out making the ordinary opening
statement to the jury. From the one
witness examined by the defense, it
was evident that an attempt will be
made to show that Mrs LIE Doux was
in the habit of using morphine, and
that either McVicar became addicted
to its use through her suggestion, or
that, while respondent, he partoo ok
of the contents of vial
found in the room, which he and the
defendant had occupied, or that,
while intoxicated, he took an over
dose by mistake, causing his own
death.
Continued on second page.)