The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, June 11, 1895, Page 14

14 THE SAN FRANCISCO GALL, TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1895. OR. LEVINGSTON AND THE CIVIC FEDERATION, Preliminary Examina- tion in the Criminal Libel Suit. THE DOCTOR TESTIFIES. Otto Tum Suden’s Veracity Questioned and McNab Guilty of Authorship. THE COURT ON DAVY CROCKETT Attorneys Wrangling and Fishing for Political News In Cross- Examination. The preliminary examination of Rev. Dr. E. R. Dille, D. Gilbert Dexter, 1. J. Truman and George T. Gaden, on charges of criminal libe! preferred by Dr. Marc Levingston, began vesterday afternoon, and Judge Joachimsen’s courtroom was crowded. Members of the Civic Federa- tion and their sympathizers were out in force, and Levingston's friends were not wanting, judging from the applause with which telling hits by counsel for the prose- cution were received. Inside the rail sat a formidable array of counsel. Reel B. Terry led the forces of the prosecution. Beside him sat R. Porter Ashe, T. A. McGowan and Lensing Miz- ner. Gavin Mc conducted the case for the defense sted by Charles Wesley Reed, Curtis Hillyer, president of the Good Government Club, and Maurice S. Woodhams, secretary of the Civic Federa- tion. The examination was a_battle from the start. Every point was bitterly con- tested and more time was spent in wrang- ling by the attorneys than in questioning the witnesses. At 4 o'clock, when the court ad- journed, Dr. Levingston was still on the Stand. His cross-examination had scarcely begun, and will be continued on Thursday at2p. M. ‘When the case was called Dr. Dille was not present, and a delay of twenty minutes ensued. Attorney Reed avologized for his client’s absenc ttriburing it to inadver- tence, and offering to waive his presence. The point was made that presence of a defendant cannot be waived, and finally, just as the court, losing patience, was about to take summary measures, Dr. Dille appeared. The first witness called was Porter Ashe. He testified that he had known Dr. Ley- ingston for twelve or fifteen years. He had met Dr. Dille. He called on him at Dille’s residence on May 5 or 6 as attorney for Levingston to inquire into charges which were to be presented to the Governor. He had a long conversation with Dr. Dille concerning Levingston’s pri- vate character and public record and asked to be given a hearing before the Civic Feder- ation concerning the charges before they should be presented to the Governor. “What is this Civic Federation, any- way?” asked Terry at this point. The witness professed his ignorance on the subject and continued. Dille had promised him a hearing before the Federation and on the following Sat- urday night he attended a meeting of that body. At that meeting he saw Dr. Dille, Mr. Truman and some other gentlemen ames he did not know, though he en some of them in the courtroom. A Cavr reporter was also present at the meeting. “What agreement was reached before you left the meeting ?”’ asked Terry. ‘T had requested the privilege of cross- examining the witnesses, but that was de- nied me. It was agreed, however, that I should see their report before it was sent to the Governor.” “Do you know whether such a report was sent?"” “Not of my own knowledge.” “Did you see such a report in the news- papers?”’ “T @id.” An article from the CALL of May 15 was read. Mr. Ashe said that that was the ar- ticle referred to, and the paper was placed in evidence. Mr. Ashe stated that he had received no_notification of the report, as agreed, and was surprised to see it in print. ' It appeared also in the Examiner of the same date. An attempt was made to put that paper in evidence also, but ob- jection was made and the first tilt between the attorneys resulted. McNab wanted to know the purpose of “this multiplication of exhibits.” The query came as a red rag to Terr{. He jumped to his feet_and thundered, ** is to show express malice. We will prove that these men sent a typewritten copy of this report to the CALLand to the Exam- iner that its publication might injure Dr. Levingston. We will also prove that they sent a copy to the Chronicle and that that journal refused to publishit. Aisothat the publication was made on the express authorization of these men.” The report to the Governor published in the CaLr wasread, and Terry went through the formality of eliciting from the witness the statement that it ‘‘referred to Dr. Marc Levingston, the plaintiff in this action.” Mr. Ashe further testified that he after- ward met Dille on a train at Vallejo Junc- tion and expressed surprise that he (Dille) had not kept faith and senta copy of the report, as agreed. Dille excused himself then by throwing the blame on Mr. Tru- man, whose duty it was to send the copy. The publication complained of was also mentioned in the conversation. McNab began the cross-examination “CAPTAIN MARRYAT” CICARS Under this brand are the “FINEST BEYOND QUESTION,” Notwithstanding the advertise- ments of rival factories. S~~~ HARBURGER, HOMAN & CO., New York, Makers. H, LEVI & CO., 117-119 Market St., Distributing Ageats. | with an insinnating question about Ashe’s I"friendship with Levingston. The witness said he had a talk with Levingston before visiting Dr. Dille. “He considered you perfectly competent to d\iscuss his record, I suppose?”’ “Yes. “You told Dr. Dille that he (Levingston) had made a splendid record as Coroner?”’ “No.” “You tried to get him not todo any- thing to injure Levingston with the Gov- ernor?”’ “Did you say anything in Levingston’s favor?” “Not exactly.” “Well, what did §0u tell him ?” “I told him that I knew nothing against Dr. Levingston’s record."” *“When you were before the Civic Fed- eration you read a letter, did you not?”’ “Yes.» “What became of it?’ “I gave it to Mr. Truman and kept no copy. I think I saw extracts of it pub- lished.” “‘Here is an article published in the CALL of May 12. Is that the letter?” “Wen. Did you prepare the letter?’’ 'No.” “Who did?” interjected Terry, “If you know 2’ “Dr. Levingston.” “Did you assist him?” Ve ““Who else was present?”’ DR LEVINGSTON There was no cross-examination, and Dr. Levingston was summoned to the stand. “My name is Marc Levingston. I am 38 years old and have lived in” San Francisco for thirty-five years. I have been a physi- | cian about twenty years. In 1853 and 1884 I was Coroner of San Francisco.” | You were beaten for Coroner by 0'Don- | nellin 1884 were you not, and Mr. Ellert | not?”’ | The answer was lost in the laugh which | followed, and McNab moved to strike out | the portion referring to Ellert. “You are the complainant action?” Kt Ven? “You have stated in your complaint that the following paragraph is false (reading): About May 12, 1883, Lottie Hunsigner took poison in thebachelor apartments of & million- aire in this City. Her body was unlawfully teken from the Morgue to a private undertak- ing establishment and every effort made on the Coroner’s part to smother the scandal and assist the millionaire. The girl’s mother and friends have assured one of our members that much money was used by the millionaire, and this was openly charged and it became & mat- ter of common notoriety. in this ““When did you first learn of her death ?” | “On the night it occurred.” “What did you do ?”’ “] sent for the body."” ““Where was it taken ?”’ “To Gray’s undertaking establishment."” “Whom did you send for it?” “Two of my deputi “‘What instructions did you give them ?” “To bring the body by all means to my office at the Morgue.” *“What was done with it?” “It was placed in the mortuary chapel | was beaten by O’Donnell last year was he | “Now, sir, did you know Lottie Hansinger in her lifetime?” “Never.” Some of the old pioneers will remembe r \his name.”” e ‘“Have you that paper now in your pos- session ?’” “Yes, I think so. 1 have a lot of old papers referring to that period of time.’’ “When, with respect to the time of Lot~ tile Hg‘n’singcr’s death, did the inquest take | place?’ | “Within three or four days.”” “‘Did you not state, when questioned by a Chronicle reporter concerning the Hun- singer case, that the police had requested You to keep quiet?” ; Terry objected to the question on the ground that the proper foundation for it had not been laid. 2 “Is that an impeaching question?"’ asked the court. ““Of course it is,” replied Terry. +It is not,” contradicted McNab. “Then it is immaterial and not proper cross-examination,’’ growled Terry. “The objection is sustained on the ground that it is an impeaching question and not proper cross examination,” an- nounced the court. ‘At the inquest did you attempt to bring out what the girl went to Cook’s | apartment for ?"’ queried McNab. The witness started to say ‘‘Yes,” but was shut off by an objection from Terry on the ground that the records of the in- quest were the best testimony. Reed im- mediately began to quote law, and read a ruling in'the case which he claimed was precisely similar to the present one. ““It isnot a parallel case,” remarked the the court. “This is not a defendant charged with crime.” ‘It is precisely similar,” retorted Reed. ““This man is charged with things, which if true, make him a criminal. e says they are all libelous and we naturally have | the'right to go into the matter fully.” The ruling made was not, however, favor- Sketched in court for the “Call™ by Kahler.] PROMINENT FACES AT THE HEARING OF THE LEVINGSTON LIBEL CASE, The question was the signal for another scrimmage. Terry objected on the ground that the question was immaterial since Levingston was not on trial. McNab said he would show conspiracy and malice on the part of the plaintiff in bringing the suit. Teniy wanted that done in proper order if at all. Reed claimed thatall that was wanted was to show that Ashe assisted in drawing up the letter. Ashe asserted that he had already stated that fact. Terry was attempting to shut off the answer, but it got in in spite of him and he threw himself in his chair with a scowl while the crowd laughed. The de- fendants’ counsel also indulged in a chuckle. A ruling was demanded on the question, “Who else was present?” And the court delivered a little homily advising the at- torneys to keep their questions within cer- tain lines. Reed wanted the tield of inves- tigation broadened, and began to quote authorities. A mild spat with his Honor followed and then Terry interrupted with an objection that as Ashe was Levingston’s attorney McNab had no right to pry into their relations as attorney and client. “Do you make it a question of privilege on your side?’ queried the court. The reply was in the affirmative and the court wasabout to rule when the defense claimed that Ashe, though Levingston’s attorney at the present time was not at the time the letter was written. Once more Terry was on his feet. ‘It makes no difference,” he shouted, **who assisted him with that letter; whether he consulted the spirits or found it on the streets, if it suited him and he fathered it.” The court suctained the objection, but Terry having gained his point withdrew the objection and McNab repeated the question, ‘“Who else was present?”’ ‘The answer was ‘“No one,” and the spec- tators laughed so immoderately that his Honor threatened to clear the room. “When you visited Dr. Dille,” pursued McNab, “did not he say that he did not know Levingston and had nothing against him personally ?” 08" “Did he not say the public good ?”” “He said that."” “Did he not say that he was simply op- posing a vicious and corrupt politici: n?” “I don’t think he used the term vicious.” “Well, it was something to that effect?”” “Jt mn‘f have been,” answered the wit- ness, and was excused. Terry remarked something about Dille being willing to convict a man upon unfounded newspaper reports to which McNab took exception. harles Wesley Reed, one of the attor- neys for the defense, was next called. The first question was, “Did you see plaintiff’s exhibit No. 1 [the report” to the Governor] before it was printed ?” McNab objected on the Eround of attor- torney’s privilege, and Reed stated that he wasone of the attorneys for the Civic Federation. Teggy evidently doubted the statement. “Did_you receive any fee from the fet‘i%rnyxpn for you services?” he asked. ‘No, “Were “No.» McNab objected again, and a hubbub ensued. Terry said he wanted to find out if Reed really was the federation’s attor- ney. | The court remarked “He swears he was,” but Terry continued his questions, and under protest Reed stated that he did not take copies of the report to the Chronicle, CALL or Examiner offices and that he did not know when they were sent, if they were sent. he was working only for you promised any fee?’” at the Morgue. The same steps were taken with it as with other cases.” “Who was the millionaire referred to?” “Seth Cook.” ‘“You held an inquest on the body?" STdidip “Did Seth Cook testify at the inquest?’’ “He did.” “Was any attempt made to excuse him from testifying?” “Yes, 1 received—" McNab interrupted with an objection that the question called for a conclusion of law from the witness. “‘What paper did you receive, if any?” continued Terry. I received a physician’s certificate that Cook had heart disease and could not at- tend and testify.” “What did you say to that?’ ‘I said,” returned Levingston, *“that he should testify anyway, heart disease or no heart disease—and he did.” “Did you receive any money for your work on that case?”’ I did not.” “Did you ever corruptly receive any money while Coroner?” “I never did.”” ‘“The next allegation,” said Terry, “is about the condition of the Morgue. %Vhat was its condition?”’ “It was modeled after the Paris morgue and the Grand Jury report said—" “Object to what the Grand Jury said,” said McNab. “The next allegation,” said Terry, “is concerning Mallady’s alleged testimony about the §1000 cha.rfied for embalming Mc- Laughlin’s body. Did you ever receive from Mallady the sum of $800 for embalm- ing, or any other sum ?” “I never did.” “If; Mallady ever gave any such testi- mony you never heard of it ?" I never did.” “1f he gave such testimony it was false?” “It was.” “Another question, Was the Hunsinger inquest conducted the same as other in- quests?”’ Reed objected to the question as calling for a conclusion of the witness. ““Then was it in accordance with the law as you understand it?” The same objection was made, said, “Take the witness.” Before the cross-examination began At- torney Reed wanted to know if the entire report to the Governor of which portions were complained of was not to be consid- ered as a part_of the plaintiff’s case. The defense was instructed by his Honor to confine their questions at first to the mat- ter testified to by the witness, and that afterward he would allow them a broader scope. The cross-examination was con- ducted bv Gayvin McNab, “When was Lottie Hunsinger’s body re- moved to the Morgue?”’ “Within two hours after death. The death occurred on a Sunday night. The body was removed assoon the jury had viewed it.” “Did not Dr. Washington Aver testify that he hunted for the Coroner and his deputies till 10 o’clock that night?” Terry objected on the ground that the records of the inquest were the best testi- mony. The objection was sustained. “Did you not know Seth Cook previous m‘ Ifiofl:’i’a Hunsinger’s death?”’ “No. and Terry “Did ou see him before the inquest ?”” iy “Who brought you the paper about his haying heart disease?"” ‘‘A man whose name I do not know. He was always around with Seth Cook, but disappeared shortly aiter the inquest. able to the defense and McNab contented himself with securing the statement that Levingston would have remembered if he had made the inquiry. “‘Did you try to learn if she was in the habit of going to Cook’s rooms?” was the next question, and another scrimmage was the result. ““It was not his duty to throw dirt on the dead girl's name,” protested Terry. “I object to such questioning. It was not the Coroner’s duty to place a stigma upon her when it was shown that there had been no murder committed.” . ‘It was the Coroner’s business to inquire into every circumstance connected with her death,” retorted McNab; but after some further sparring he abandoned that line of questioning and tried a new tack, which proved very interesting. “When did you first engage in politics?” ““In 1881."” “What was your first participation?” “I was then” a member of the oid Man- }“"E‘,’" Club, which was then anti-Buck- ey. “‘What's that?” ejaculated the court. “Anti-Buckley? Does that mean against Buckley or for Buckley ?'’ Terry objected to the questions. He thougnt it “just as well to join the issue then as later. Before he had scarcely started the court interrupted him with a fatherly “Now sitdown; just sit down and let the gentleman answer the question.” _“Dr. Black refused to make an autopsy txll‘{he”Morgne was cleaned, did he not? *‘No. “Do you know of that he did not?” YN “Did you not see the'interview with Black published in the Chronicle where he mfu!ge that statement ?”’ “‘No. yaur own knowledge ‘“Were you not accustomed to scrutinize the Morgue news?'’ Terry objected to the question, but was overruled. “Yes.” “You found it very entertaining news, dldg’ou not?”’ “Yes.” The questions were calculated to irritate the witness, but he preserved apparently the utmost good humor. ‘“You were as careful of your reputation ther[: as you are now?” Frag) “Did you not require your deputies to point out 1o you anything concerning your office that was published in the papers?’”’ ., “They may have called my attention to it. Ido notremember.” b . “You did not sue the Chronicle for libel 2 “No.” “Ilgor require a retraction from it?” “No.” “Did you then ask Black for a retraction of the statement in his interview as you did the other day, eleven years afterward ?”’ “I did not.” “Did you not try to have the whole lot cleaned up when you wanted to run for o@&e again the next year?” “‘No. *What arrangement_re, did Ly have with Mr. Mall “None.” ““You were responsible for Mr. Mallady’s employment, were you not?”’ ‘He was not in my employ. “But you could shift the Morgue wher- rding charges yffi o evfi{r Z:\,x, pleased ?” *‘And you could have controlled Mr. Mallady’s charges?” “I had nothing to do with his charges.” Terry clw;ie(:tm‘).g that the question was un- fair, because it presupposed that every- ly that came to the Morgue must be buried by Mallady. *‘When did you first meet Mr. Mallady?” continued McNab, getting back to politics, “Shortly after the convention of 188L. I met Buckley there, too. It was the year I was left off the ticket.”” s *‘Did Buckley have anything to do with that?” “You better ask him.” “‘Oh, I'll take your word on that, doctor, igagnst Buckley’s, never fear,”’ said Me- ab. “‘Well, I would not take yours on any- thing,” was the retort courteous from Liv- ingston. McNab grew red, but there was no outbreak. < ‘“You considered Mallady very meri- torous?” *“Yes, I thought so.” “Did you ever hear the story about the Long John Wilkins note?”’ 4 ‘‘Yes, after I made the appointment. I did not know Long John then either. met him afterward to my sorrow.”’ i “Did you hear any complaints against Mallady 2’ 5 ‘‘Yes, I heard he was discourteous to ri- val undertakers.” “Did you hear any about the maltreat- me'l{l’, of dead bodies?” “No.’ “Did you not see such charges in the Chronicle from time to time?’’ 3 “No. About the time of the Hunsinger scandal a reporter came to my office for more scandals. He was politely told that scandals were not furnished to order there and he used his imaginati . “On October 17, 1883, the Chronicle pub- lished charges concerning the kicking of dead bodies. Did you see that?” ““If it was there I did.” 3 “Did you ask Mallady about it?"” I do not remember.” ; “Did you nov ask the proprietor of the Chronicle about it?” *No, for a very good reason. I wasnot then ongood terms with Mr. de Young.” “You did not sue the Chronicle for libel 2” “No.” : Terry interrupted at_this point. “This shows the unfairness of this cross-examin- ation,” he said. “The report of the acts of a third party could not be libel against Dr. Levingston. Rev. J. George Gibson might as_well sue the papers for libel for their criticisms of Durrant.” P “I investigated the matter,” said Ley- ingston, “‘and found it was a lie.” “Do you not know that the kicking oc- cured in the presence of Otto tum Suden, a practicing attorney of this City ?’” “No. Idonot think Mr.tum Suden is telling the truth. Iknow he isn’t.” “How do you know ?” “Because he does not generally tell the truth.” The silence that followed the reply could be plainly felt McNab then went into Buckley’s rela- tions with Levingston. The witness said he saw Mr. Buuljey before he appointed his nephew Deputy Coroner. The young man proved incompetent and was re- moved. Buckley was not consulted as to the removal. The alleged withholding of hodies at the Morgue, unless Mallady was to bury them, was next touched on. Dr. Levingston denied any such practice. *Did not Mr. Tyler go to your office at the instigation of him who is now Con- zressman J. G. Maguire and tell your GEhiyithatit v Heldiback sl conisa Fody any longer he would put you all in jail?” “I never heard of it before.”” “Did you £o to see Buckley about your renomination ?”’ 1 did not. I take that back. “What was your Buckley ?”’ “He did not want me. Bruck.” “How did you get him over to your way of thinking 2" “I did not. I got Bruck out of the way.” It was brought out that Levingston had treated Buckley professionally a short time ago. There was something the matter with his nose. “‘Been sticking it into the State Board of Health, hadn’t he?” queried McNab. ““Mr. Buckley visited me professionally.” id he pay you for the visit?” «That is my business,” said Levingston, and retired behind his professional privi- lege. {cNab protested yvigorously. He said, “I want to snow that this is an attempt at a ghastly resurrection of this corpse—of this man who is politically dead. An at- tempt to impose on the Governor this specimen of political leprosy.” He said much more, too, and it was not clear whether his remarks referred to Mr. Buck- ley or to Dr. Levingston. “You can ask him if Mr. Buckley went there for any purpose other than to receive medical treatment?” suggested the court. “That is the Mr. Buckley who was once olitics?”’ queried McNab, playfully. hen Terry took a hand. “There has not been a question asked for the last three-quarters of an hour,” he said, ‘“that is proper cross-examination. All this stuff cannot go in.” “It can go in,” contradicted the court. “*Not unless it violates every rule of evi- dence,” rejoined Terry. ““It does not violate any rule of evi- dence,” returned the court, contradicting the attorney flatly for the second time. ‘‘Oh, well,” growled Terry, *‘if no rule of evidence goes except McNab's sweet will, all right.” “There were some meetings held in your oftice regarding the State Board of Health, were there not?” queried McNab, return- ing to the charge. INo.? “Did not you try to get the Governor to 'ht?serluin physicians on the Board of Idid.” conference with He wanted Dr. appoi: ealt! Terry objected, saying there was nothing in the ease to show that there wassuch a man as Governor Budd. McNab squesned that the court would take judicial notice that there was a Gov- ernor of California and that his name was Budd. “That’s right—Jim Budd,” said the court, and everybody laughed. “Did not you tell Ed Lanigan in the revenue office that all you asked of the Goyernor was the appointment of Dr. Cox and Dr. Rosenstern on the Board of Health and yourself as Health Officer?”’ “No; I said I would like to see those gentlemen appointed.” “Did you not say you would be satisfied with yourself as Health Officer and Mizner as Quarantine Officer?”’ “I may have.” “Did you not ask the Governor for the appointment?”’ Not directly. I may have told him, ‘Governor, thereis such a position. I think a friend of yours would fit it very nicely and ’m a friend of yours.’ A big laugh greeted this exemplification of the proper way of asking political favors. ‘When it subsided McNab tried again. “Did not the Governor tell you of these charges?’ “No, I think I told him.”” “Did you see an article published in the Star of May 42” Terry objected. He thought that be- cause others had attacked Levingston it was no defense for these defendants. McNab claimed that he wanted to show that Levingston’s reputation was a matter of common report and that his clients acted in good faith and had no malice. Then Terry quoted more law. He thought the ~defendants had thought, “‘Here is a man whom anybody can attack with impunity; he is an easy game; we will camp on his trail, for there is no dan- ger.”” Because Barry of the Star had at- tacked Dr. Levingston was no defense for E. R. Dille, 3 Reed claimed that as in criminal libel express malice must be proyed he had a right to show by the articles mentioned that the defendants had simply repub- lished unchallenged charges and had done it innocently. The court held that the defendants should have observed the Davy Crockett motto, ‘“Be sure you are Tight, and then go ahead.” A iength_v discussion followed, and a homily on” general belief. At the end Reed’s voice was heard claiming: “We have a right to know why he gets after these disinterested ople instead of those who made the original charges.” Terry claimed that good faith was not a defense, but it could be oifered in miti- gation when the Judge came to pronounce sentence. The court ruled that the question should be answered, and the shorthand reporter resurrected it from his notes several pages back. The question was about the article in the Star. “T did not.” was the reply. “Did anybody call your attention to that article?”’ “¥es.” “Who was it?” “1 do not remember.” ““Was it not Governor Budd?” “I do not know.”” ““If it had been the Governor you would have remembered it?"’ “I don’t know whether he did or not.” f“D,id you read the article in the Wave of—27’ “i heard you printed it.” “Tt was a'good article whoever wrote it.”’ McNab tried hard to read the article, but did not succeed. Terry guyed him unmer- cifully and remarked, “We are willing to admit that Mr. McNab writes a good article without hearing it read.” Then McNab went on with his qaestions. “When you were discussing the appoint- ment of the Board of Health did vou not tell the Governor that it was all right for you to be appointed as you had fixed the press?”’ “Did you not say that the Governor had thrown down other men, but did not dare to throw you down?”’ “No.” “Did you not say to Andy Clunie that the Governor would not throw you down?” | “I did not.” “Did you not say that he had promised yon\ghcyappomlm\-m foe SNG: Several more uestions,on the same line were asked and answered. They were practically repetitions of the foregoing. A consiltation of counsel for the defense | was held and McNab stated that in view of | the adjournment till Thursd v he wanted to ask a half dozen questions more. The hour of 4:30 o’clock had arrived, however, and his Honor declared the session ended. The case will be taken up again on Thursday at 2 p. m. at which time Leving- ston’s cross-examination will be continued. The City editors of all the papers are to be summoned also to state how they ob- tained copies of the communication of the Civic Federation to Governor Budd. DAUGHTER AGHNST SOI Mrs. Albert Files a Contest to Her Mother’s Will Leav- ing $18,000. She Alleges That Her Brother Brought a Lot of Undue In- fluence to Bear. Mrs. Agnes Theresa Albert, through her attorney, Thomas E. Curran, has filed a contest to the will of her mother, Mary Coffey, who died recently, leaving an es- tate of $18,000. It consists of real estate in the Mission, this City; about $6500 in the hands of Father Maraschi, and land in Shasta County valued at $5000. There are also some lands in Mendocino County, the value of which is problematical. The will filed on Friday last bequeathed the estate to the only son, William C. Cof- fey, with the exception of legacies of $200 to Father Maraschi and $200 and a half interest in the Mendocino County property to her only daughter. She was thus prac- tically disinherited and now brings this contest. The contest is made on the usual grounds of incompetence to make the will and un- due influence. Specifically, the petition asking that the will be denied probate alleges that it was not the last will of de- cedent; that she, at the time of its execu- tion, was not of sound and disposing mind ; that it was not signed by her nor attested by two or more competent witnesses in her presence; that it was signed under re- straint, undue influence and fraudulent misrepresentation, and was procured by undue influence, exercised over her by William C. Coffey, her son, and others. Finally the petition alleges: That if the said Mary Coffey executed said supposed will the said will was executed by her under an entire misapprehension or delusion concerning matters and circumstances which never existed in fact, but which are as in said supposed will ‘as the reason for giving the bulk of her property to her son, William C. Coffev, and _practically disinheriting her daughter, said Agnes Theresa Albert, contest- ant herein. Mrs. Coffey was one of the owners of realty on the new Postoffice site and sold it for about $10,000. She had three children and had made a will dividing her property among them, but on the death of her son, John A. Coffey, destroyed that will. The latest will contained a paragraph disin- heriting any contestant. ORUELTY NOT PROVED. Judge Hunt Denies a Divorce to Mrs. Fannie Belmont. Judge Hunt yesterday denied a divorce for the present to Fannie P. Belmont from her husband, Harry F. Belmont. She alleged cruelty which consisted chiefly of statements made by the husband about her. On one occasion he had accused her of “making a date” with a gentleman and on another of conduct that would cause her parents to hang down their heads in shame, if it were known. The husband made no denial and a default was entered. The plaintiff’'s attorney was proceeding to prove the charges of cruelty with letters written by the husband, when Judge Hunt stopped him. HE 1S HELD FOR MURDER O. W. Winthrop Will Have to Stand Trial in the Superior Court. THE EVIDENCE OF HIS GUILT, Judge Joachimsen Renders His Decision and Refuses to Fix Balil. The interest taken by the members of the Order of Chosen Friends and others in the case of 0. W. Winthrop was shown by the large number who were in Judge Jo- achimsen’s court yesterday morning to hear the Judge deliver his decision. Winthrop is charged with the murder o Mrs. Jennie Matthews, wife of Edwin 8. Matthews, a cable-car conductor living at 502 Broderick street, by giving her a pill containing strychnine whiie she was at the graves of her children in the cemetery. Mrs. Matthews’ life was insured in the order for $2000, and at her death the money was made vayable to Winthrop as trustee r surviving child. Winthrop was f the council of which she was a . The peculizrity in the insurance on her life was that ber husband did not know of it till after her death. The Judge, i i his decision, said that whi was not at all con- as to Winthrop's guilt he thought it was one of those cases that a jury should upon. The statute made it the duty of a committing magistrate to ascertain first whether a crime had been committed, and secondly if from the evidence there was reason to_believe that the defendant had committed the crime. “I think,”” said the Judge, “‘that the evi. dence shows a crime has been committed, and that Mrs. Matthews was poisoned by some man while visiting at the cemetery, and there is reason to believe that the de- fendant poisoned her. “I will hold the defendant to answer before the Superior Court on the charge of murder.” The Judge refused to fix bail, as the crime was not one in which the defendant was entitled to i Loomis Must Pay. Attorney Rix for defendant in the case of Charles A. Loomis vs. Mabel Treadwell and Calvin 8¢ rs, which took over a month to try, has filed a bill of costs aggregating £827 50. Among the items are: Jury fees, twenty-one days at reporters’ fees, twenty- one day ; Sherift’s fees, $3; J = Mrs. . Knox, $2. For serving Brings comfort and improvement and tends to personal enjoyment when rightly uses{ The many, who live bet- ter than others and enjoy life more, with less expenditure, by more promptly adapting the world’s best products te the needs of physical being, will attest the value to %ealth of the pure liquid laxative principles embraced in the remedy, Syrup of Figs. - Its excellence is due to its presenting in the form most acceptable and pleas- ant to the taste, the refreshing and truly beneficial properties of a perfect laxe ative; effectually cleansing the system dispelling colds, headaches and fevers and permanently curing constipation. It has given satisfaction to millions and met with the approval of the medical profession because it acts on the Kid« neys, Liver and Bowels without weake ening them and it is perfectly free from every objectionable substance. Syrup of Figs is for sale by all druge gists in 50c and $1 bottles, but it is mane ufactured by the California Fig Syrup Co.only, whose name is printed on every package, also the name, Syrup of Figs, and being well informed, you will no accept any substitute if offerea. “Is that all that your charges of cruelty consists of ?”” asked his Honor. “Yes,"” returned the attorney, “we will show the mental anguish of the plaintiff and support her testimony by these letters of the Rusbnnd. I understand that this is deemed sufficieat by the code. The Su- preme Court in Barnes vs. Barnes—'’ “You can’t get your divorce on letters by one of the parties. Such course would open the door to endless collusion,” de- cided Judge Hunt. The attorney obtained more time in which to discover witnesses who may tes- tify to some valid ground for a divorce. ———— M. D. BORUOK BETTER. He Has Been Seriously Ill, but Hopes Are Felt for His Recovery. Marcus D. Boruck has been lying ill of dropsy at his home, 2125 California street, for the last four weeks. At first the dis- ease seemed to be only a slight indispo- sition. About a fortnight ago it assumed a more serious aspect. Mr. Boruck then grew rapidly worse, and last week his physicians abandoned all hope. ‘Within the last few days he has taken a turn for the better. Yesterday he was so much stronger that the doctors expressed hopes for his ultimate recovery. e was resting easily at a late hour last night. ——————— Good News, Ladies. GREAT AMERICAN IMPORTING TEA CO.S STORES Are selling MASON FRUIT JARS at greatly re- duced prices. One dozen Jars, pints, in box. One dozen Jars, quarts, in box One dozen Jars, half gallons, in box. 80c Inspect our Improved Jelly Glasses, Ice-cream and Berry Sets of 7 pleces—25¢. 35¢ and 50c per set. WE ARE HEADQUARTERS FOR CHOICEST TEAS, COFFEES AND SPICES. Our prices—quality considered—positively the lowest. Buying directly saves Middlemen and Peddlers’ Profits. —————— The Tanks Are Full Of pure sea water all the time at the Crys- tal Baths, owing to the refilling every night. This bathing place has the largest réqpply and best arranged tub baths in the ity. - THEY manipulate paper into every conceiy able shape; print or bind it, Mysell & Rollins, 521 Clay streets » A SVMMER SIREN e o froCar - K R - ‘u\d': her -Avioharpea The World’s Fair Com. mission said that the musical possibilities of this instrument were un- limited. And it’s so easily learned, too, and so reason- able in price. Prices, $4, §5, $10, $15, $20, $25. The §6 Style is the Most Popalar. f0U CAN PLAY IT IN TEN MINUTES. Dellghtful Company for Your Sum- mer Outings, in Camp, Aboard Ship, Anywhere. SEE DISPLAY IN WINDOW. Call and See This Simple Instrument SHERMAN, CLAY & CO. MUSIC DEALERS, » Corner Kearny and Sutter Sts., S. F. IMMENSEREDUCTIONSALE CAPES, sUITS, SILK WAISTS, JACKETS, Etc. ARMAND CAILL/EAU, 46-48 GEARY STREET, Corner Grant Avenue,