Bisbee daily review., 1909-02-19
CASE AGAINST MRS. |. MATTOON DISMISSED
Cnntlnned from Page one.l )

 a liar who said so.
 Was she at your house often when your wfe was there?' was the sub stance of a question put by the de- fense.
 "Yes. she lived at our house for a time" was the reply.
 Yes, and it was a hard l'fe,' WAS the comment of Mrs. Str.ekfer. who was ordered by an officer of the court to keep quiet.
 NJ J. McKelllgan, representing the district attorney, at this point asked two Or three questions, wndns uD with two or three questions. winding uY .th this one:
 Do you love your wife?'
 "Striekler was on h's feet in mo ment. his face livid with passion, and h's whole figure trembling under emotion that possessed hm. He turn ed to the man who had put the ques- tion to him and asked in a ringing yo'ce: Are you any part of a man. He followed this up by charging that there was a plot to ruin him and that McKelligan had been put there as part of that plot. Tie latter d's- claimed any ulteriOr motive in asking the question.
 Tt Is none of your business who 1 love" was the parting shot q ths l plaintiff as he sat down He also ad- ded that Miss Scauster was in his em- ploy at the present time, and that sine would continue Co be, and that no "one horse attorney could prevent him fron doing as he pleased in the matter.
 MRS. sTRickLER Mrs. Strickler was placed on the stand next IL was evident that she was iaboriug under great mental stress. She was uncertain in her re- plies. and in fact during her examinA- ton on the witness stand stated tnaJ she dd not know what he did do at he time she was being questsone about She stated that on the after noon of December z7th or as near as sre could remember the date she gave Mrs. Mattoon the address of NIT. Striekfer's brother in Kentucky. T will take up for my husband" said the witness, but" pointing her finger at Miss SchusteT. T will kill that girl
 Did you ask Mrs Afattoon to write letter to your husbands brother% the witness was asked.
 q might have told her to write. don't know. l don't know what did do.' was the reply.
 Mrs. Strickler, when asked to give particulars of what had occurred be- tween her husband and this girl she said she saw enough, and, looking at Miss Schuster, said: She knows. Don't look at me that way" When pressed for details. however, the wit ness failed to give any specific iR- stances of misconduct on the part c: her husband, adding that she was not here last summer. The witness again repeated, looking at the stenographer: Il vii ltake up for my husband, but not flor that vile curse"
 The next step in the case was tn, effort on the part of the prosecutiu, to show that the defendant had writ ten tEe letter by proving by experts that the handwriting in the letter over which ae case arose was the same as that of the defendant. Super!ntend- ent C. F. Philbrook was introduced as witness and produced a letter W.T. t. ten to him two or three years ago. which the ma den name of the de- fendant was signed and in which she i applied for a position in the puDHc schools. The witness was unable to swear that it was the handwriting O: the defendant, and the defense ob- jected to it's admittance on that ground. The objection was oyerrIieu | and the testimony of the witness was | produced with.
 | Mir. Philbr5ok stated that he did not 1 consider himself qualified to testify as a handwriting expert. but after com | parison of the two gave it as his oplu- lien that the same person d not WI te | ae two MessFs Rankin, Spiers, ! Buckwalter and Ruth testified that | the handwriting was the same, so far as Lhe,r ability To tell was concerned. 1 \ recess of ten minutes was then taken. after which attorneys for the defense asked that the case be dis missed on tHv ground that the pros,s cution had failed 10 make out a Case. linasmuch as they had fa'led 10 prove ithat the letter sent to Kentucky had lbeen written by the defendant by not producing in the court writing proved 10 be that or the defendant as a basis for comparison, and on other grounds. lTbe motion vas oyerrUled. the court
 stating that he did not see thar % would do anyharm to hear what the defense had to say.
 The attorneys for the defense then changed the'r tactics and admitted that Mrs. MattOoa had written the letter. There was a sharp clash be- tween Attorneys Neale and MorrlsUI at this point over the admission of Mrs. MattoOn's ev"snce. The court
 ruled for the defense and the witness
 made in substance the following state Iment:
 That she had been a friend of tiIt, Strick!er family for two or three years, and that she was in the habit of visiting Mrs. Strickler frequently;
 that they were close friends; that 1 Mrs. Strickler asked her to write a letter to Mir. StTickler's brother. tell
 ing him all she lad head; that Mrs,
 S1rickler was at the time in dee'
 Strickler was at the me ID deen dis
 tress. and that the witness offered to
 do anything she could to help her:
 (the witness here broke down but soor l!recOvered'; that Mir Strickler had tread a letter from NIT. Strickler's
 mother, in which the latter had asked
 him what was the matter with his
 wife nov: that Mrs. Strickler. in ta.s conversation, had stated to her that she dd not know what she had done
 to Gene" as she had been as gOos
 to him as she knew how. and loved
 him: that she asked the witness not
 o sign her name. as she did not wanl Gene" 10 know whom she had asked 10 write the letter. Witness also