The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, January 5, 1896, Page 8

8 THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, SUNDAY, JANUARY 5, 1896. REV. DR, C. 0. BROWN As Prosecutor of Mrs. Da- vidson He Is Plied With Questions. HIS ANGER IN COURT. Judge Campbell Quashes All Efforts to Elicit the Facts of the Scandal. CONTINUANCE TILL TUESDAY. Suspicions as to Mrs. Tunnell's Dis- appearance—Mrs. Davidson’s Serenity. There were two dramatic scenes in Judge 3 Campbell’s cor -day @ the hearing of the casc Mrs. Davidson, charged by Dr. h extortion. The v Gallagher asked wan if it were true th 2 en a drug to his wife for purposes named by the defendant of excitement from the wi P or two, and shaking his ace of Mr. vou would not a of the rel, ide the protecti z of feet and a move- ment like the prelude of sounding cheer, for order and said when will allowed . Gal- 1 are not ad- and 1 warn vou not to attempt 1 epis the en Mrs. tell the story Carr David as alrea son took stan continuance was worn out on cher des d he grot with the day’s proceediags and hence not physically able to stand the trying ordeal. judge Campbell turned to the aged pr onerand asked if she desired a continuance. he people did not know what to ex- pect—whether a burst of righteous indig- nation or a flood of repentant tears. Every ear was turned to catch v eye was the first fixed on the aged iandev wh soner no trace of hos- , but was wreathed in a peace- With cast d and speaking in strong, de- es, Mrs. Davidson said: “I trust the good Lord, our God, will protect a poor old lady acting of justice. le feel happy smile. heaven liberate tox her eyes n the cause If you wish to go on I will tell the truth in this case.” Again was there a hum of excitement, but before an actual demonsiration could ed until 1:30 be made court was adjour o'clock Tuesday. attend- ing and afternoon ses- ing the fri pals implicated in scandal. Judge Campbell secured Judge Bahrs’ court- room, in order, probably, that the curious- An unusnaily large crowd was ance at both sions, inc morz nds se princ minded could be comfortably accommo- | aated. Just as the interested spectators had | settled back in thei seats in anticipation of something racy, Judge Campbell rose and, a merry twinkle in his eye, said: “I secured this room from Judge Bahrs, but it seems that the janitor ob- jects, so another migration is necessary. The proceedings will be held in Judge Belcher’s room, and I- But the crowd did not wait to hear any- thing more. It made a wild rush for the new seene, men pushing aside women in their mad desire to be with st, and the women, not less gentle in their movements, pushed those aside themsel who appeared weaker than It was some little time before the doors were opened, and in the mean- time & squad of police appeared on the scene and soon quieted the struggling mass. Detective Seymour was the first new wi nesscalled. He told the story of the arrest of Mrs. Davidson and how she had acknowl- edged receiving $500 from Dr. Brown for the purpose of preventing certain things reflecting on the minister’s secret life from becoming public property. She had acted simply as agent for a Mrs. Baddin, who kept a lodging-house on Sixth and Brvant streets. The prosecuting witness (Dr. Brown) was then again placed on the staund. The rever- end gentleman showed plainly that the case was a burden to him. He was pale, nervous and to a degree haggard, though he aswered all questions in the same quick manner that characterized his first days’ presence on the witness-stand. Dr. Brown commenced by describing the several visits of Mrs. idson. “At first she was very pleasant,” he said, “but later became menacing. On the evening of November her very “I object,” interruptea Attorney Gal- lagher. “I abandoned the cross-examina- tion in order to move for a dismissal, and I am opposed to further testimony, which, at best, is a mere matter of conclusion.” “I am anxious for the truth to appear,” said the Judge. “The objection is over- ruled.” Dr. Brown was then permitted to go on with his statement concerning the atti- tude of Mrs. Davidson on the occasion of her visits to him, at the conclusion of which Attorney Gallagher moved for a dismissal. *I ask this for the defendant,” he said, “‘on the ground that the charge is not sus- tained. Mrs. Badden is the only one who can contradict defendant’s statement that she got the money for Mrs. Badaen. Th; prosecution must show that no such per- manner became underbolt, and | DEFINES HIS MOTIVES | son as Mrs. Baddin exists. It isnot neces- | | sary for the defendant to show that such a | person exists. The burden of proof falls | on the prosecution,” Judge Campbell hela that nothing had as yet been clearly established, and so de- nied the motion for dismissal. | At the afternoon session, while Dr. | Brown was being cross-examined, quite a | tilt occurred between him and Attorney | Gallagher. The minister grew indignant | at the persistency of the examining coun- | se1 to secure a certain answer relating to | his visit to Captain Lees | “My reason for hesitating is because I | realize that Iam dealing with a tricky | man,’’ said Dr. Brown. | *“That is all right,” replied Gallagher, “but don’t you at times indulge in a little | | trickery yourself?” | | Mrs. Gray and Mrs. Thurston are firm in the belief that the missing witness, Mrs. | Tunnell, has been induced to go into hid- | ing, though that she could consent to such | a scheme is a great shock to them. Mrs. Gray goes so far as to suggest foul play, | though she is careful not to give any | names as the probable responsible parties. | Mrs. Davidson says she is honestly glad to be in prison, giving as a reason that she | is in fear of her life. *‘Iam safer here than anywhere else,”” she said, “though I am pelled to be very careful as it Only to-day a lady visitor warned me not to eat nything coming from outside the prison. While 1 appreciated the motive of my | friend, the warring was hardly necessary, for I already kunew that my life was not safe.” | Dr. Brown will not occupy the pulpit of the First Congregational Church to-day. | He gave as areason the pending investi- gation. e~ | COURT PROCEEDINGS. ’ The Case of Mrs. Davidson, Charged | With Extortion, on Trial Before Judge Campbell. soon as Judge Campbell had disposed | of some petty criminal yesterday morning he announced that the case of Mrs. Mary A. Davidson, c iiarged with extortion by C. 0. Br of the First Congrega- tional Church, would resumed in Judge Bahrs’ courtroom. is sent the crowd that was preseat in as large numbers as on Thursday, when rinary hearing b the Ne ToOom nam fter all were comfortably settled J apbell, with a smile that showed he appreciated the humor of the or situation, announced that another migra- | tion was in order, and that the goal this time was the courtrcom of Judge Belcher. Another headlong race followed, and it was 11:45 A before Judge Campbell asked : tlemen, are you ready to proceed? Lloyd—Doc and, pl The cou the witnesses in blease ret After the prosecuting witness, Dr. C. O. , had taken the s of Thursd i the case | my Jast question. | the doctor. | object for which she claimed she had received | this money was 1ot mentioned; that Mrs. Baddin told her: «I keep n lodging-house and you are a church member. You don't know as much sbout reachers as I do.”” She then told her she saw r. Brown go to the lodging-house with a lady, and some few days after Mrs. Baddin called again and told Mrs, Davidson that the lady she saw with Dr. Brown was a lady stopping in her (Mrs. Davidson’s) house. Mrs. Davidson said the lady was Miss Overman. Lloy hat is all. The cross-examination of the witness as then begun by Attorney Gallagher as W | follows: She told you the intent with which she got the money for Mrs. Baddin, and she told you the doctor gaye it to her for Mrs. Baddin? Seymour— sic. There was something else T wonld iike to state, Gallagher—I am not asking for 1t. Lloyd—Anything further that yon recollect? Seymour—1I had the reeeipt and showed it to Mrs. Davidson e>d asked herif she ever saw that paper befe .. She said che had, and said it was hers; s« wrote it ih Dr. Brown's study At the dictaticn of Dr. Brown at the time she received the money irom Dr. Brown. tagher—That is all, Mr. Seymour. Lloyd—That is the case for the prosecution, The court—Does the prosecution rest? Lioyd—Yes, Gallagher—1f your Honor please, I desire now to make A motion to dismiss the charge against the defendant on the ground— “The court—l want to ask Dr. Brown a ques- tion or two more. 1loyd—Doctor, take the stand. When the prosecuting witness resumed his place on the stand Judge Campbell asked: At the meeting in your office on the 21st and of November what was the manner of the defendant in addressing you? State whether or not she was pleasant or what her manner was. Gallagher—Objection on the ground it is ealling for & conclusion. The court—Witness may state how defendant acted. Brown—When she first came into my office at S o'clock on the 21st her manner was pleas- ant for a little time_until I proceeded to read the paper and I told her it was no use to go further. Then it became menacing until well- h the close of the conversation, and she was also excited. Gallagher—If pass on my motion I am willing to go on. The court—I want to get a little more infor- mation. I want to find out whether there was an actual extortion committed, and to find out if there was anything new (addressing the witness) on the 2:2d. Gallagher—Objection. It would be an opinion only—a conclusion, The court—Objection overruled. Brown—When Mrs. Davidson had given me the document I was absolutely ignorant of the name of the lodging-house keeper. Gallagher—We still desire to have a fuller cross-examination. The ¢ witness has not yet answered Brown—She appeared to be angry. Gallagher—Objection. It is an opinion of the witness, The court—T deny the motion to dismiss. Gallagher—I desire again at this stage of the proceedings to ask your honor to_dismiss the charge against the defendant. First, that it does not appear here that this defendant is guilty of the particular act charged. It does 1ot appenr here that she levied extortion upon They nave failed to prove that the true. 1f there was any law to be drawn, the existence of Mrs. Baddin must be admitted They have failed to show that Mr Baddin did not get the money, and the pri mptior iat Mrs. Baddin' ‘did get the endant got the money from the Baddin that would not aud if she did not get it for Baddin it would be getting money under pretenses. | must assume that the testi- mony given here is true, and there is 10 evi- dence here to contradict Mrs. Davidson’s story, that she went to the doctor for any other pur- pose than o assist him in protecting himsel rom the scandal that’ would resuit fron n of this story presumption _of Then she is not guilty of this crime. din is the only oue who can con ndant that ske got the money for Mr: Baddin. The prosecution must prove the guilt of the defendant bevond a doubt. They must show that no such person as Mre. Baddin e: ists. It is not necessary for the defen fo prove that she does exist. The of proof rests .on the prose- The " proposition is: First, has | ime of extortion been committed? claim that there is nothing in the evidence 10 show that the crime of extortion was amitted, but that this money was obtained, MRS. C. O. . BROWN., [Sketched in the courtroom yesterday by a *“‘Call™ artist.] on request of Attorney Gallagher. The | latter then continued cross-examina- | tion of the witness, as follows: | Doctor, I am going to abandon the line of | cross-examination I was pursuing when you | were last on the stand, and would ask you | iether or not any pArt of this money—the 00—that you eave to Mrs. Davidson was | going to Mrs. Baddin. Witness—[ don’t know anvthing about it. | You don’t know Mrs. Baddin? No, sir. When this money was given to M son, it was given to her for the purpos ing'itto Mrs. Baddin, as she told you? | It was given to her for the purpose of stop- ping & threatened publication. I do not know of my own knowledge tnat it was given to Mrs. Baddin. This ended the cross-examination of the witness for the time, with the understand- ing that he might be recalled by the de- | fense 1f demed desirable. | J. F. Seymour, the officer who served | the warrant on and arrested Mrs. Davidson, | was then called for the prosecution and | sworn. He testified to having served the | warrant on the 28th of December last, and | then Mr. Lloyd asked: | At that time did you have any conversation | with defendant? Ii so, what? | Seymour—I had a conversation with her at | her residence, eary street. | The court—Was the conversation free and | voluntary? | 1t was. | vd—What was it? | mour—I called ‘on - Mrs. Dsvidson, in- formed her who I was and stated I had a war- rant for her arrest and thet I was a police offi- cer. She asked me who swore the warrant out | and I told her Dr. Brown. Shesatd she knew Dr. Brown and I told her the charge was ex- ! tortion. I told her Dr. Brown charged her with blackmailing him out of $500. I asked her if she got the %500 from Dr. Brown. I asked her what she did with the money. She | said she got it to give to Mrs. Baddin. Mrs. Baddin was a lady who kept a lodping-house at | xthand Bryant streets. She saidshe was never | in that vic fe. Iasked her how | | she became acquainted with Mrs. Baddin. She | seid Mrs. Baddin called at her place of business | | and bought a corset, and in the conversation | that took place the name of Dr. Brown was | moner under false pretenses. if it was obtained, under falsc pretenses. The docior gave the money for Mrs. Baddin, 1f there is no Mrs. Baddin it was obtaining . and as the com- plrintdoes not cherge this crime we ask your honor to grant our motion. If they think it is securing money under false pretenaes let them bring the proper action. Attorney Guilfovle then”took up the ar- gument on behalf of the defense along similar lines, and was followed by Attor- | ney Liloyd, who defined the crime of extor- tion according to the statute and in the light of recent decisions, claiming tbat the present was clearly a case covered by the statute. In the course of hisargument the Jatter said: “The existence of Mrs. Bad- din is a question of no importance at all. If the defendant is Mrs, Baddin and Mr: Baddin is a myth, then she induced this man to part with money by fear and threats, and if that not a clear case of extortion then it is impossible to make one.” It being claimed by the defense that it was necessary to show_intent on the part of the defendant in order to establish the criminality ot her act, Attorney Lloyd, in controverting this proposition, quoted from decisions to show that where un act specifically made a crime intent cuts no figure and claimed that the case under dis- cussion was covered vy these decisions. Ex-Judge Louderback followed his col- league, confining himself more particularly to showing the difference between the crime of extortion and that of obtaining money under false pretenses. During his argument he took occasion to remark that the crime of blackmail under the circum- stances testified to in this case was one to which women who had once been con- | victed ot some offense were peculiarly addicted when they ran short of money. The crime, he said, was very common in this and all Jarge cities of the Union. He then called attention to that part of Dr. Brown’s testimony in which Mrs. David- son claimed to have power over Mrs. Baddin from the fact that she was in vossession of a dark secret in her life. your Honor does not wish to | be | | | | | { him. REV. DR. C. 0. BROWN ON THE WITN [Sketched yesterday by a * Call” artist.] ESS - STAND. This, he said, was no new proposition. It was, he said, the conrse that was fre- uently resorted to by blackmailers. In his closing argument Attorney Gal- lagher said: “The receipt he demanded from Mrs. Davidson to protect him (Dr. Brown) showed he was afraid of such a secret. Mrs. Davidson to levy further blackmail on him. | | her, and that she may not have any reason to ever since tried | Does | that show that she had any personal in- | terest in the matter so far as the money is concerned? This motion is made in char- ity for the protection of the prosecuting witness. We wish to prevent further pub- lication of this scandal—to prevent de- fendant going on the stand and telling all she knows regarding this secret of Dr. Brown's.” At the conclusion of his argument At- torney Gallagher asked the court to take the matter under advisement, as the de- fense, and perhaps the prosecution, might Gallagher—Did not the defendant on the oc- casion last mentioned, August, 1895, ask you if you still cherished the old unlawful love for Miss Overman? And.did you not reply: I do notwish to have anytning more to do with see me I will pay you the money (o give to er?’ Objection on the same ground. Same ruling. | Did you not call in the month of December, | 189; ind remain at the défendant’s house and | remain with Mis< Overman and the defendant | | J i want to bring further authorities to the | notice of the caurt. Attorney Lloyd said he was willing to have the court take the matter under advisement, bat the coart stated that he required no time to make his decision, speaking as follows: Ithink that all the facts and t} testimony | and the actions of the defendant in ihe office of the prosecuting witness establish in my mind that she went tnere for_the purpose of | frightening Dr. Brown into paying her monev. Her action and manner, as described by the prosecuting wit show this. She did not go there in a kind, Christian spirit to protect She went there, I think, from the man- two hou not hand ) defendant? Objection on the same ground. Same ruling. Iid you visit Syracuse within the last year? | Brown—I did. | When did you return? | 1 llhm I arrived here on the 7th of Novem- | ber, 18 Soon after your return from Syracuse did you | | | and when you were leaving did you ss Overman £35 in the presence of | call on defendant and hand her £33 for Miss Overman? Objection on the same ground. Same | ruling. ner described, to obtain money irom Dr. Brown | for herself, Itseems thet way to me. Admit- ting ali these facts to be true,she went there | and became excited, producea this receipt and refused 1o give the name of the nameless woman and said it would be no use for Dr. Brown to see the woman. The motion is de- nied. Exception noted by defense. Geallagher—Take the stand, Dr. Brown. At this point one of the attorneys an- nounced that he had begun to suffer from the pangs of hunger and suggested that a recess be taken. The court was then ad- journed to 2:15. It was 2:35, however, before the proceed- ings were resumed. Dr. Brown was re- called for further cross-examination and was asked by Attorney Gallagher regard- ing a paper thatheh to the press of the C immediately after the arrest of Mrs. Davidson. Dr. Brown had been instructed by the court to have this document in court, but confes<ed that he had forgotten about it and immediately dispatched his son, who was present, for the missing paper. Attorney ]IA)Io_vd endeavored to prevent the introduction of this paper by com- pelling the defense to state the exact pur- port of it; but Mr. Gatlagher refused to commit himself further than to say that the paper he wanted was the one that Dr. Brown had read to the newspaper report- ers in the office of Captain Lees on the day that Mrs. Davidson was arrested and which appeared in the morning papers of the following day, concluding: “I don't propose to be tricked.” Awaliiing the return of Dr. Brown’s son Attorney Gallagher resumed the cross- examination of the witness, as follows: Doctor, did you have any conversation about Mrs. Baddin, or sbout the nameless woman whom you aiterward learned was Mrs. Bad- din, prior to the 21st of November with Mrs. Davidson ? d prepared and given | Objection on the ground that the ques- | tion did not relate to the three occasions offered in the direct examination of the witness, Attorney Gallagher—I am asking it for the purpose of contradicting the witness regard- ing matters that occurred on these three occa- sions. IfIcanshow that hebas made a state- ment that at the time he says this conversa- tion was held it was held in her rooms, and not in the church at ally I have a right to ask this question. ] want to show that the action of Mrs. Davidson and her demand did not ocenr in the church, but in her house, and Iwant to show it by his own statement. Iam asking him now if he had any previous meet- ing where Mrs. Badden was mentioned. I want k this for the purpose of showing the credibility of witness, and also the intent with which Mrs. Davidson went to the church and 11 her meetings with witness. Objeclion sustained. Gallagher—Did you not, in_the latter part of December, 1894, make a confession freely and as follows to the defendant that you loved a friend with a love far exceeding that for your wife and that the woman was Miss Nettie Overman? Did you make any such confes- sion? (To Lloyd (to iwitness)—Wait a moment. court)—Objection on the ground that it is not Proper cross-examiration, as it does not re- ler 1o the three occasions covered in the direct examinations of the witness. IBrown—-I would like to answer that ques- tion. Lloyd—Don’t you answer any question until you are permitted. Gallagher—I protest to the action of the wit- ness and his counsei. They should not be per- mitted to give us these displays, which are made for the purpose of giving the public the impression that the witness is willing to an- swer these questions, (To witness)—Did you not in the month of August, 1895, tell de- fendant that you had given Mrs. Tunnell $10 to be given to Mattie Overman? Objection on same ground as before, Sustained. Gallagher (to court)—I ask this question for the purpose of showing the intent with which the defendant acted. (To witness)—Did you not in August, 1895, call at the defendant’s house and leave the sum of $35 with the de- fendant for Miss Overman, saying that you desired to assist Miss Overman? Objection on same grounds as before. Same ruling. The court—I don’t see why you insist on ask- ing these questions. Guilfoyle—I will explain why we take this position. If the witness should die the prose- cution would have the rizht to read his testi- mony, and we ask these questions so that when we go to the Superior Court and the wit- ness dies and goes out of the State we may pro- tect the defendant in her right. We want to be in & position to raise the pointof the ad- missibility of the statement of witness. l«lugd—(’ne question of that kind is enough for the Superior Court to base its decision upon. | signs of deep and suppressed passion and | he was stopped, and ever alert and always meetings at the church? Objection on the same ground. Same | ruling. | At the time when I have asked when Deacon | Morse was present, did Deacon Kerr come into | the same room ? Same objection. Same ruling. | Did you have any conversation with this de- | fendant on the 19th of November when either Deacon Kerr or Deacon Morse was present? | Same objection. Same ruling. Did you notat one of those meetings on the 21st or 22d of November, 1895, make a con- fession to this defendant tnat you had fur- nished some edicine—ergot—10 Miss Over- man to effect a certain purpose? Same objection. Same ruling. Did you at any other time make a confession to Mrs. Davidson that you had fnrnished ergot to Miss Overman for this certain purpose? At this point the witness began to show 1 i Was Deacon Morse present at any of the | | was about to make a vehe nent reply when calm Mr. Lloyd made the usual objection. | Attorney Guilfoyle then argued the ad- missibility of this question as follows: | We offer this evidence for this reason: If it | | | be true and he did give this woman ergot he was guilty of a felony, and if he entered into negotiations with this woman he was guilty ! with this women. If we can prove this there must be more corroborative: evidence to su tain this charge against this defendant. We wish to prove that this state of affairs did exist; that defendant and Brown entered into & conspiracy to keep from a magistrate the commission of a felony, and that he is an ac- cessory to the fact. We contend that both par- ties were cONspirators to this extent, that they conspired 10 keep the facts from fhe earsof a | magistrate. | Objectibn sustained. Gallagher—Did not the defendant speak to you of the enormity of the crime of giving | ergot to the woman? | Same objection. Same ruling. Gallagher—Did you not say, “My wife takes | ergot for this purpose?” | This was the last straw, and the passion | of the witness burst its bounds. He| writhed in his seat for a second or two, | and then blurted out in tones of deepest anger and indignation: “You are an in- | famous man.” "And with these words he | balf rose from his seat, preparatory, ap- parently, to making an attack on the of- jending attorney. He was checked, ho: ever, by his watckful attorney. But his denunciatory remark was not | ignored by Mr. Gallagher, who made a prompt and almost equally passionate re- ply, as follows: Iam not so infamous as you are. If I wereT | would drown myself. .I am not, like you, try- | ing to shield myself behind the law. Lloyd—The witness should not be blamed. I would knock any man down who made any reference to my wife as was made to that of the witness. Gallagher—He shoula answer my like a man—an innocent man—an preacher should, | Lloyd—Counsel has no right to insult the | witness under the guise of keeping the record true, Gallagher—My client told me these are facts, and I believe her. Noone can run a bluff on me. (To witness)—Did defendant tell you that Miss Overman complained to her that the medi- cine you gave her had made her sick? Same objection. Same ruling. Did vou use these words to the defend- | ant: “I am not such & bad man, and love Mattie, and will do right by her, but I don’t wish to have her around me any more. In fact, she must not come to my office as she did last'week. Mr. Pike may tell things. Same objection. Same ruling. Did defendent call at your oftice on any Sun- day in December? Same objection. Same ruling. Did defendant call at your office on any Sat- urday in December, and did you sey to defend- ant:’ “God will kéep me now. 1 putmyself wholly in his hands”? I Same objection. Same ruling. And in the same conversation did you not say: “I will continue to pay Miss Overman §35 amonth, for I have wronged her, but keep this | secret for me”’? | Same objection. Same ruling. Excep- | tion noted. Iwant to ask where it was the defendant first spoke 10 you of & threat made by anybody to expose you? Same objection. Same ruling. Did you have a conversation with ‘this de- fendant a few days before the 21st of Novem- ber, when there were no persons present but yourself and her, about a woman who she told you had made & threst to expose you? Same objeckon. Same ruling. Prior to November 21 did you have any con- versation with defendant at all regarding the | woman who had threatened to expose him, Mrs. Baddin. Objection sustained. Atany time in conversation with defendant | uestio; as about the woman who had threatened to ex- pose you did you say to her, “You might never see her again, but at any rate keep her away from me. She must not come to my office.” This is in relation to the Baddin woman. Objection sustained. At any of these interviews or any interviews you have ever had with Mrs. Davidson in rela- tion to this threat to expose you, was Miss Overman present ? Objection sustained. At any of the meetings at which you hada conversation with Mrs. Davidson, testifled to by you here, was Miss Overman present ? Witness—She was not present. Did you ever make any attempt or did you ever request Mrs. Davidson to procure rooms | 1or you over Liebes’ store for you and for Miss Overman? Objection sustained. Did you ever ask her to give you a duplicate Key 0 a room over Liebes’ store? Objection sustained. Do you know where Miss Overman has been living for the last week? Objection sustained. Did you see Miss Overman onor about the 22d or 23d of December, 1895 ? Objection sustained. Do you remember stating anything in your direct examination to the esféct that you had any conversation at all with Miss Overman concerning Mrs. Davidson ? Witness—I don’t recollect that I made any statement to Miss Overman about Mrs. David- son. Did you have any conversation with Miss Overman concerning Mrs. Davidson’s conduct and in the presence of Mrs. Davidson? Objection sustained. What motive, if any, did you have far hay- ing Mrs. Davidson arrested ? Lloyd—Wait. The motive has nothing to do with the offen Gallagher—We claim that the prosecuting witness may be expecting to gain the good opinion of the community by succeeding in sending this woman to jail by creating the ides that her story was not true, Objection overruled. Witness — My motive was to punish the women for doing a wrong thing in taking my money. That was my only motive. To rid the ty of a blackmailer, Have you employed speciel counsel to prose- cute this case? Yes. At this point it was announced that Dr. Brown’s son had returned with the writ- ten statement that Attorney Gallagher had asked for. After considerable contention on the part of the opposing attorneys it was aliowed to go in as evidence. Dr. Brown had shown considerable hesitancy in acknowledging that this was the paper that he had read to the newspaper report- ers, but finally did unquslifiedly make the admission. This led Attorney Galagher to ask him why he had not been frank in | the matter, and Dr. Brown replied : Because you're a tricky man. I realized I was deaiing with a tricky man. That is all. Gallagher—It was not because you are a little tricky yourseli? Objection sustaired. Attorney Gallagner then produced the statément of Dr. Brown as printed ih He CALL, stating that it was easier for him to read the print, and began to question the witness with reference to it. His reason for this, as explained to the court, was that he desired to show that the statement showed that what the witness had said was done on the 2lst or was not done as he stated. He made comparisons between the witness’ testi- mony on direct examination and that in the written statement, for the purpose of showing that the witness had testified differently from what he had written for the information of the newspapers. These apparent contradictions were explained by the prosecation by stating that the writ- ten statement was a narrative of all the circumstances connected with the alleged blackmailing, written without regard to specifyving timeand place, when and where particular incidents occurred. Attorney Gallagher finally struck a new | remain in hid lead. He asked: Did she in either of those interviews at the church refer to the enemies you had made during the Herron discussion? I think there was a reference. absolutely sure about that. ence to my enemies. You only remember one conversation in which there wasany reference to your enemies? Objection sustained. Did she say to you in this conversation at the church that the young lady herself would swear that what the lodging-house keeper stated was true? She said in the first conversation that the young lady herself would be one of the three persons wiio would sustain the lodging-hou: charge. That conversation occurred at § o'clock in the evening. That was in the church, was it? Yes, sir. Did she in that conversation tell you of the state of the public mind, etc.? Did she tell you that the lodging-house keeper demanded $20007 No, she did not. How many times did Mrs. Davidson tell you that the lodging-house keeper wanted money? Objection sustained. Exception taken. Here Attorney Gallagher went off on another tack, and in response to his inter- I am not There was a refer- rogatories the witness stated that he was | born near Battle Creek, Mich., that he 40 years of age on the 2d of last July, that he was ordained as a minister at Grand Ledge, Mich., in 1875, that his first pas- torate was at Rochester, Mich., that it be- gan in September, 1876, and continued for one year, that he next was called to Gales- burg, Mich., where he served for one year, then he went to Kalamazoo, remaining five years, thence to Dubuque, Iowa, for the same period, and to Tacoma, Wash., five vears ago on the 11th of December, where he remained for a year aad a half. Gallagher—Did you get acquainted with Martha Overman &t Tacoma? Objection on the ground of immaterial- | ity, etc., sustained. Dr. Brown then further foliows: Ileft Tacoma the first week in August, 1892, I have been back several times and returned there once in the company of Mattie Qverman. Gallagher—In what capacity did she go along? Objection on the ground of immaterial- ity. Objection sustained. Did you give the defendant here, before ber conversation about the nameless woman, Mrs. Badden, any instruction to make any arrange- ment for you on the 21st or 22d of November? Witness—I never made Mrs. Davidson my agent in any sense whatever. Gallagher—I move to strike out the answer of the witness as not being responsive. So ordered. On the question being repeated the witness replied: I did not. Did you lell her to see Mrs. Badden and to keep the thing quiet? I never did. When you dictated that receipt you fur- nished all the words used therein, did you not? 1 think so. Why did you dictate it in the shape it isin? 1 bad one main reason in dictating that doc- ument. I wanted to get the name of that nameless woman. Did you believe that there was su woman? At the time I did not believe there was. You wrote that, then, thinking vou were fool- ing her? Tdictated that in accordance with her state. ment that there was another woman, Did you insist on putting the woman's name 1n the contract for the purpose of making Mrs. Davidson believe that you beiieved her story s No, I did not. Iwanted to get that name for the police to work upon. no;v long after that did the police work on it Tv;"o or three weeks. A little more than three weeks. ‘1‘;“;" did you see when you went to see the olice? L 1 first saw Captain Lees. Was anybody with you? Deacon Morse. testified as ch a Lmd you make any statement to Captain ees? dxmd. It was not in writing tomy knowl- edge. What did you say to Captain Lees when you got there? Objection sustained. Exception taken. How long after you went to Captain Lees with this statement was the defendant ar- rested, if you remember? I went to Captain Lees on Mond defendant was arrested on the follow’ day. Why did you three weeks? Objection overruled. 1had not et become absolutely sure in my own mind that Mre. Baddin e won lndgers Were mythical perss What has occtirred siuce that time—between the time you gave this money to Mre. Deiycon ::‘lme‘l gxe %m;,slv:fl(}n‘puln Lees? W c o fimly X this in your mind e s Baddin was a mythical person? ; Postpone going to the office for 1 of November | | | | | | | | Objection sustained. Exception taken. Y’ v, now, under oath, of your own kn\on\\uk-rsi!g}a' that Mrs. Baddin' is & mythical person? Objection overruled. q at any Mrs. Baddin exists, lnflinnvfj“:gznx;enevg the statement of Mrs, Davidson was true, and did you not part with your $500 by reason of the statement made to you by Mrs. Davidson ? Objection_on the ground that the ques- tion was indefinite and uncertain was sus- tained. id_y believe that the statement of .\(xps‘.dbn}\?igsonnnghxne Mrs. Baddin would expose you unless you gave her $500, and did you not give her the $000 for the reason that you be- Tieved the statement made by Mrs. Davidson ? Objection on the ground that the truth or iafsxlv of Mrs. Davidson’s story wasim- material was sustained. Did you not believe the statement of Mrs Devidson that mrs. Baddin would exposey unless she got $500 the next dey? Same objection. Same ruling. Did you believe fr-m Mrs. Davidson's state- ment that Mrs. Baddin would say something about you that you did not want her to say whether it was true or false? Objection overruled. Yes, 1did believe that this nameless woman would publish a statement. Did you not part with your $500 by resson of the statement made by Mrs. Davidson ? Yes, sir. This closed the cross-examination of Dr. Brown, and Attorney Gallagher’s an- nouncement of that fact elicited from 3Ir. Lloyd an excited admonition to Dr. Brown, ina jocular manner, to make haste and leave the stand, as the defense might change its mind. “Next witness,”” came from the court, and this brought Attorney Gallagher to his feet again to ask the courtif he intended to go on with the case. The court—I want to get through with this to-night. Gallagher—T don’t think you will get through with the defendant if I put her on the stand, and I shall refuse to allow her to return for cross-examination. Louderback—Leat us adjourn to to-night. Gallagher—I want to finish her examination to-night. Louderback—Let us try. Lloyd—We will go as far as we can. Gallagner—Mrs. Davidson, take the stand. Before she was sworn, Judge Campbell asked her: “Madam, do vou desire to testify in your own behalf?”* Gallagher—I must really protest against going on with the examination of this witness s time. She informed me it would be im- ble for her to testify fully to-night. She is an old lady 60 vears of age and we protest against this. She is sick and worn out. There was some further discussion be- tween the attorney and the court, which Mrs. Davidson interruptea by saving: *‘I am not sick, but very much physically fatigued, but 1 am willing to go on. I put my trust in the good Lord, my God, who [ believe will protect a poor old lady acting in the caase of justice, and if you want to go on I will endeavor to speak the truth in this case.” After Judge Campbell had expressed his willingness to go on with the case atany time providing he could get a suitable courtroom, as he did not care to sit in his own uncomfortable quarters, the case was continued to 1:30 r. . Tuesday next. MRS. GRAY’S_BELI EF. She Thinks That the Disappearancs of Mrs. Tunnell Portends Evil. Mrs. Gray, who keeps the lodging-house, 1041 Mission street, where Mrs. Tunnell roomed, mace the following statement to a CaLL representative last night: 1t is bey Tunnell, if ond my comprehension why Mrs. she is the good Christian woman we all believe her to be, should so mysteriously , but T am confident that she 1 by & will stronger than her ts her from coming out and clearing herseli of the cloud of suspicion in which she is at present involve Itis difficult 1o believe that & woman who has been as ezrnest and faithful in her work for Christianity as Mrs. Tunnell would lend her aid to a crime or be guilty of wrongdoing of any kind. The more I think of it the deeper grows the mystery, and while I would not for a moment say or hardly allow mvseli to think other than that Mrs. Tu has heen induced to remain is being influe own, which preve n hiding until this scandal has quieted down. Iam certain that other ve disap- peared and have never again been seen in this world for being implicated in matters of much less signi nce th Tunnell is involved, The last I saw of Mrs. Tunnell was on last nday morping, and upon thinking of the menner in which she made her departure from my house, I confess thatI am mystified, and also completely baffled in an endeavor to exse my mind regarding her most mysterious dis- appearance. Early last Sunday morning, a young man whom I should judge to be about 20 years of age, stylishly dressed and wearing a scartled expression on his face, came to the door with & message addressed to Mrs. Tunnell. At the time of the young man's arrival Mrs, Tunnell was in bed, but on_rea the note she ap- peared to be much disconcerted, and after hastily dressing she toid me that she had been summoned by Dr. Brown, and that she would be back later in the evening. She took none of her clothing with her other than that she had on, and this fact lends color to my belief thatshe intended to return for it, but as she has not as vet sent for her trunk or any other of her efiects, her disap- pearance begins to assume & very grave if not starthing appearance. During herstay in the house Mrs. Tr spoke & number of times regarding her f n the one in which Mrs. ell nd- hip and regard for Miss Overman, and it is evident that they were very dear friends or else that they had interests in common from a number of episodes which at the time of their takine place appeared to Le common- place enough, but, on careful study, assume & more important aipe A week ago las Miss Overman called at my house to see Mrs. Tun- nell, but I informed her that the lady she was seeking was notin. Shemade her departure and, as Tinformed a CaLL r she returned last Saturday ing my husband, inquired s to e could procure a room e hou: 1, being an- swered in the afirmative, she selected a room and promised to send her trunk down the next day at noon and that she would come later in the day, but she did not do as she promised. In addition to this fact, Mrs. Tur made her departure, which greatly added to my dis- appointment. I first met Mrs, Tunnell at a lecture given last May in Golden Rule Hall, under the ause NEW TO-DAY. SELECT the GOOD, AVOID the BAD, il 1s Shoes. Over 100,000 pairs of “Rough-and-Ready” and “Knox All” School Shoes were sold this vear at the BIG SHOE FACTORY, ROSENTHAL, FEDER & (0., 581-583 MARKET ST., Near Second. EL.'S PINEOLA BALSAM is a sure Rem- edy for coughs. co'ds, sore throat and for asthma. s00thes. quickly 3 the cough and renders expectora- tion ea: ST oy COXSUMPTIVES Will_invariably de- rive benefit from its use. Many who sup D se their cases to be consumption are onl suffering from hronic cold or deep- seated cough, of en aggravaied by ca- tarrh. For catarrh use Ely’s Cream B..m. £oth remedies are pleasant le to use. Cream Balm, §0¢ per sam. 25¢. Sold by Drugsist ELY BROTHERS. 56 Warren bo: Pineola Bal- New York.