The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, January 10, 1896, Page 17

16 THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, FRIDAY, JANUARY 10 1896. FOUND AT LAST, The Chief Witness in the| Church Scandal at Visalia. She Virtually Admits Their Authenticity, and Says They Were Stolen. GRAPHIC STORY OF THE CHASE. | Mrs. Davidson Subjected to a Severe Cross-Examination on the Witness-Stand. Mrs. Tunnell has been found. The chief witness the Brown-David- son sc the woman who for two weeks has ev ars of the law and sue- | press repre- located by THE se, 1703 Geary street, :30 o'clock on Sunday ow she caught the night, December last boat that ni for Ozkland; how she was traced to the residence of Mrs, Hayes in the city across the bay and was again obliged take flight for Grangeville, Kings County, where she was a guest of‘ Mrs. Hayes. There she was again located by THE | Carr,and in order to escape the reporter | started d early the next| There she | to k to Hanford. took the train for T morning to i then drove | to Visalia, with the newspaperman still on her trail. Mrs. Tunnell gives as a resson for her | flight from the City her desire to escape | notoriety in connection h the church scandal. When finally found at Visalia, s threw up her hands and freely told her story to THE CALL repre- sentative. | Tk preliminary examination of Mrs. n on a charge of extortion, pre- C. 0. Brown, was mpbell yester- lefendant the ernoon and was amination. were enlivened 1 opposing was on counsel and At one time Attorney d the ire of the court t n extent as to be threatened with tment. It all came about over the relative to the comm admission mony ad decided during the part of the discussion that unless it d corvicte: dson had been not proper to n such an interesting Later he reversed his n, to the great disgust of the for the defe I cannot understand it,” said Guilfoile, “but your Honor seems to be ruling dif- ferently in the c: the present witness. “Now, ask her ¢ episode of he Brown and may be—" interrupted the Judge, se of e here, “Iam endeavoring to conduct this case | according to the law and the evidence, and I donot want any insinuations from you to the contrary. Asitis, you are almost in contempt ourt.’’ Then Attorney Guilfoile begged his Honor’s pardon and said he would not for | the world intimate the possibility of his Honor's acting in any but a fair manner to all. Mrs. Davidson was on the witness-stand for four hours. ble exhibition of lapse of memory. She recalled with the date of her birth, the fact that she was a Bible class and Sunday-school teacher for a long period and that she nursed the sick and wounded during the Civil War. But from 1878 to 1888, a period of ten years, ber mind was a perfect blank. Under oath she swore that she could not tell one single event which transpired dur- ing that time—what she did or where she was. It wasa wonderful exhibition of forgetful- ness—clever in its way, because it pre- vented the introauction of evidence damag- | ing to the witness’ credibility. True, it was all brought out that Mrs. Davidson had at one time been an inmate of a reform school, but of this she swore she had not the slightest recollection or knowledge. Mrs. Davidson was asked to identify a picture taken at Lynn ten years ago. ture?”’ asked Louder- Is that your p I 4o not profess to be 2 jndge of my s, hence I will not say whether that picture or not,” came the unex- ed answer. The prosecuting attorney was somewhat disconcerted at this, out resumed the at- tack by ing if he knew a man by the e of Shaw at Lynn, Mass. She re- in the negative. ou mean to tell me that you do not know Shs L ve no recoliection of the person named.” Then ex-Judge Londerback started off on He my a vew tack. S, TUNNELL 1§ tion: She gave a most remarka- | perfect distinctness | d where she was and | | | what she was doing each year from!1878 to 1888, Invariably the answer came back, “I do | not know.” The case will be continued in Judge Campbell’s court at 1 o'clock to-day. e D MRS. TUNNELL FOUND. | The Chief Witness in the Brown- Davidson Scandal Tells Her Story. VISALIA, Car., Jan. 9.—Under the glare of an electric light ea one of the side streets of Visalia is the home of a good Christian woman, and in her safe- | keeping is Mr. Tunuell THE OVERMAN LETTERS. ve has had a tire- ome sieze of it in following up the trail ot the missing witness. Shortly after 9 o'clock this evening word was received hat Mrs. Tunnell would see Tue CALL re porter. After entering the house she did not d but c: n with outstretched hands and remarked : “I hope that all my friends will know | to-morrow that I am in the best of health and in safe hands. “Why did you run away ?”’ was asked. ‘‘From the reporters and also dread of a | subpena. 1 don’t crave notoriey. I am not afraid to tell what I know, and if I could be secured from that I would cheer- fully testifv. I was getting tired of it all and so made up my mind to escape.” “How did you carry out your inten- “Well, first T went to Dr. Brown’s house, but the reporters were thick and p ersistent; they just hung around the house till mid- night. Then T left by the rear entrance and went to my friend, Mrs. Eaton, in Oskland. They soon located me there, and it was just as bad as st Dr. Brown I left there in the evening and went to Mrs. Haves at Grangeville. Was there a week and was feeling safe. “Last Monday night | at the door. Mrs. H her houschold dutie summons and found es being busy with I answered the a gentlaman who afterward proved to be a CaLL reporter. | ' place. 1| He asked if this was M told him yes. s. H. He then asked me if a Mrs Tunnell stopped there, 1 told him I would Mrs. Hayes. I sent her to the door, and I again made use of the back door and walked out into the country for a distance of six or seven miles. I re- turned home after 9 o’clock.” “The next morning I arose before day light and walked to Hanford to Mrs Grover’s. She is a daughter of Mrs. Haye: “That evening the children drove me to the station, and I took the train to Tulare. | 1 stopped at a friend’s house there that night. The next morning I took my v and started out afoot, intending to go to | another friend’s house, where possibly I could rest for a day or two. “I was walking along contentediy when | a bug containing a gentleman and his wife overtock me. They asked me to get in and ride with them. | | | | | ‘ [From a photograph.] they were going near my friend’s house | and the answer was in the affirmative. “Nearing there I saw a buggy witha | man in it and asked who that was. On | being told it was a CaLL reporter I re- | quested them to drive on. After going a short distance I proposed to ge: out and walk. “They asked me where T intended to go, | s0 I said Visalia, and on telling them the name of an old lady friend of mine they | informed me she was a dear friend of theirs. So here I am, free once more. “I first met Mattie Overman in 1889 at Spokane. Itwasin church, and we were sitting in the front rows. She occupied a | seat in front of me. She had a pretty little | black-haired child with her. I remarked, ‘What a strange combina- tion—a black-haired child and a red-haired mother.’ “After service T met her in the Sunday- | school. The regular teacher being absent, I was very much impressed with Miss Overman, because her answers were 5o in- telligent I at once took a liking to her. ““Atthat time she wasa dressmaker, and while there Ler people moved to Tacoma. She told me then that she received at least two letters a week from Mrs. David- | son begging her to come to San Francisco; that she had a nice room for her and would make it pleasant. ‘‘Mattie could not understand why such a fine educated woman would want a poor ignorant country girl with her. ‘“Miss Overman met Dr. Brown before I did. In ber letters from Tacoma she wrote about her preacher, and at that time I had some of Dr. Brown’s writings and I admired the articles. Mattie wrote me that e thonght of going to the World’s Fair, and with that our corre- spondence ceased for a very long period. During the Midwinter Fair time I at- tended Dr. Brown’s church and introduced myself to him, and asked him if he lately had heard from Miss Overman. To my surprise he answered: “‘Yes, she is here in San Francisco and visits our home every few days.” “She called on me at my request and lived with me for several months., She then went to Dr. Brown’s, “Yes, Miss Overman greatly admired Dr. Brown and told me about the intellec- tual feasts they held every evening. She was hungry for information. They were greatly attached to each other. I don’t know of anything of their so-called hoiy love. They both conducted themselyes properly, as far as I know of.” At this point of the interview Mrs. Tun- Highest of all in Leavening Power.— Latest U. S. Gov’t Report Dal Baking Powder ABRSOLUTELY PURE ome one knocked I asked them if | I was called on to take charge of the class. | nel was shown the published letters from Mattie Overman to Mrs. Tunnell. She threw up both Lands, stood look- ing at the documents a moment and in- quired in a subdued whisper where they had been found. “Idid not know they would ever come to light. Give them to me instantly. They were taken surrepiitiously from my trunk at 1041 Mission street. Give them to me instantly.” ‘‘But, madam, these are not the original letters.” I know, but they are copies of the let- ters I received from Miss Over—.” Suddenly she stopped and turned away. “What did I say ?” she continued. ‘“No, no, I do not want them. They are not the letters Mattie wrote me; you may keep them.”" ‘“What do you mean about your trunk being broken open?”’ “Some lady must have done it, as they were all published.” “What were published ?’" “Mattie’s letters.”” “Then they were hers, were they?” *Yes—no. Gracious, I —" Wwho protested angrily at the statement of the other side regarding the conviction of the defendant, Louderback went on to explain that the question was only preliminary to asking her about a conviction of felony. He then continued addressing witness: “Is that your picture?’ (handing her the Iflmu}gr?nh received from Boston with the nscription on the back). The court—Objection overrulea. Witness—T do not profess to be & judge of my own picture, “You say that under oath. Do you know y«ml ?{e stating that under oath?"’ This elicited a doubting laugh from the ¢ross-examiner, which brought down the wrath of Attorney Gallagher, who objected to the opposing counsel’s hilarity. Louderback (continuing unmindful of Galla- gher)—Do you know a man by the name of Juseph E. Shaw of Lynn, Mass? An objection to this was overruled. Witness—I do not. i'Did you ever know a man by that name?” I can’t say, sir.” These replies evidently nonpiused Mr, laugh was on was indicated by the prompt rejoinder of ex-Judge Louderback: ““We had no business or desire to object {o your going into her character.” o ouderback, continuing the cross-exami- nation, asked: “‘Did you ever sign as your name the name of Sturgis?”’ Witness—I have no knowledge of it. “You have no knowledge whether or not you have signed the neme of Sturgis 8s your name?”’ An objection to this question was sus- | tained. “‘What name did you go by in Albany?” An objection was interposed on the ground of not being proper cross-examina- tion and that it was assuming defendant had lived there, Louderback—Did you ever live in Albany, in the State of New York ? Witness—I have answered that. “You haven't answered that “I have no knowledge of ever having lived in Albany.” “Dou’t you remember attending church at Albany?” An objection led to considerable argn- And in her agitation she knocked the lamp off the table, plunging the room in darkness. On lighting a match the lamp and chimney were found in good condition. She then cried ou “Oh, who has broken | into my trunk?” and immediately left the room in great confusion. COURT PROCEEDINGS. Lively Tilts Between Judge, Counsel | and Defending Witness—Case 1 Continued To-Day. | Judge Campbell kept the many hun- dreds of prople who were anxious to listen to the cross-examination of Mrs. Davidson yesterday guessing from 1 o’clock, the hour set for the continuation of the hear- | ing of the charge of extortion against the defendant, until 1:40 ». when he called for order in the courtroo: Judge Conlan, instead of that of Judge Joachimsen, as had been announced. The uncertainty relative to the place of holding court and the delay in opening the proceedings that have characterized this case were the sub- ject of much unfavorable comment. As was stated by an interested person enough time has been thus unnecessarily wasted to make up a day’s session of the court. In advancing to take the stand Mr: Davidson showed almost youthful spright- liness in her apparent eagerness toface the ordeal of cross-examination that awaited | her. Her counsel opened the proceedings by asking her, “Did you rc‘lute to the doctor at any of the meetings vou had with him prior to the day that he gave you the | | $500 the conversation or conversations you | had with Mrs. Jane Elizabeth Baddin?” | To this the witness replied, I did.” | Counsel for the prosecution objected to | her repeating this conversation, as it had | already been given, Mr. Lloyd jocularly remarking that he objected to a repeater. | The wrangle ended when Attorney Gal- | | lagher had succeeded in getting the wit- | ness to state that what she told the doctor relative to the Baddin conversation was true. The cross-examination was begun in rather an unexpected manner, being | based on a letier received from Chief In- spector W. B. Walls of Boston, Mass., in- | closing copies of papers in the case of the people of tue State of Massachusetts | against Mary A. Davidson. The-e papers purport to show that Mrs. Davidson was convicted of a certain crime in that State nine years ago. | Accompanying the letter was also a pho- | tograph of the woman convicted, on™ the | back of which appeared the following: | January 2, 1896. Shaw of Lynn, county of Essex, 1 of Massachusetts, hereby make the following deposition, to wit: 1 have known Mary A. Davidson, alias Mary P. Sturgis, for fifteen years and more, and while a member of the Massachusetts district police arrested her in Albany, N. Y., November 17, 1886. She was brought to this commonwealth, tried at the Superior Court at Salem, January term, 1887, convicted on four counts for selling mortguged’ property, sentenced to thirty | months in the House of Correction, which sen- tence she served. I al%o declare this photograph to be a correct likeness of her at the time of her arrest. JOSEPH E. SHAW. Suffolk—ss. January 2, 1896, Personally appeared before me Joseph E. Shaw, who made oath that the abovestatement was true to the best of his_knowledge and be- lief. IsAAC S. MUDEN, Justice of the Peace. Judge Louderback had charge of the cross-examination. *Did you ever reside in Albany?” This raised an objection on the ground that it was not proper cross-examination, Attorney Gallagher claiming be had asked her nothing about Albany, adding that he had carried her from the time of her birth to 1873 only. The court—I am inclined to think where you have gone into her life the prosecution have the right to go into her whole life. Gallagher—If your Honor is going to try the case according to the rules of evidence, and you have applied them strictly against the de- fendant, you should appiy them now. We have exciuded twenty years from her life. There is nothing in the record on these years and the prosecution has no right to gointo that perioa on cross-examination, but must confine itself, according to the decision of the Supreme Cour:, in the cases of a defendant strictly to the matters brought out on direct examination. The court—Objection sustained. Louderback—Did you know & woman by the name of Henrica Iliohon in Albany? “No, sir."” :*Did you know such & woman at any time?” “I never knew her.” “Did not she accuse you of obtaining money under false pretenses on a frandulent insur. ance policy in which you figured under the name of Baddin?” | The court sustained an objection on the ground of the question not being proper in cross-examination. Louderback—Did you ever reside in Lynn, Mass, ? In response to an objection by Attorney Gallagher ex-Judge Louderback said his question was merely preliminary, and that he would prefer to waittill the” statement | regm;dmg her conviction was brought into court. This aroused Attorney Gailagher's ire, 1 ocEE | “I1S THIS YOUR PIC] RE,” Louderback, whose face showed deep dis- gust tinged with the bitterness of defeat, ASKED but after a short pause he returned to the | attack with renewed determination : *‘Do you know an officer of the State of Mas- sachusetts by the name of Shaw of Lynn, county of Essex?” ‘I have no knowledge of such a man, sir.” *‘Well, did & man by the name of Shaw ever | arrest you for any offense?” The court—You cannot impeach witness in that way. Gallagher—You got her answer and you are | bound by it. Louderback—We do not have to believe her | In the course of the discussion which | followed Mr. Louderback said to the lead- | ing attorney of the defens You don't know r (defendant) yourself. When you know & little more of her past his tory you may then know a little about her.” Gallagher (resuming his argument)—These cople “have no right to get this witness to dentify herself. The court—They can fmpeach this witness by showing she was convieted of a felony. Louderback—Were you ever arrested in the county of Essex? An objection to this was sustained. “Did you ever county of Essex? An objection was sustained. {:R1d you ever go by the name of Abbott?” “Nos ““Have you ever been called or known by the | name of Abbott?” | <As my surname, sir? My middle name is | ehholl. ButIhave never been called Mrs. Ab- | bott.” ““Since you have been married have you ever boe{! known as Mrs. Abbott?” “No, sir.” been known as Mary P. now nothing of it, sir.” wh(lhfli or not you have gone by that name?” “No, sir.” name—Mary P. Sturgis?” An objection was interposed. Louderback (to the court)—She has given most remarkabie testimony when she says she | does not know whether or not she ever was called by the name of Sturgis. The court (to the witness)—Were you ever called by that name by people generally? Did you ever answer to that name? Witness—No, sir. Louderback — Have you any knowledge yourseli? Gallagher objected and while he was stating his ground Mr. Louderback en- deavored to induce witness to answer. This precipitated a short, but hot tilt between counsel, Gallagher charging his opponent with fairness, and Louderback was . Gallagher med that the line of ques- | tioning was not proper cross-examination, and that the witness could only be im: peached by contradicting her testimony on direct examination or by skowing a con- viction of felony. Lloyd (taking up theargument)—The witness testified to her'zood character. Sheopened the question of her character herself, and it is le- gitimate cross-examination to show her bad churacter, Itisour right to show she has led & disreputable life. That is a very important element. Upon any question of doubt charac- ter must be considered. She has undertaken to raise the shield of good character for her protec- tion. This shield the law gives her. 1t presumes her chaeacter to be good unless otherwise shown, butshe hasendeavored to show us upon her own testimony that her character is good. We want to show that her shield is rotten, rusty and full of holes. She tried to impress your Honor with her patriotism in caring for the wounded during the war and with her morel and Christian attributes in teaching Sunday-school. We will show that she is a fraud, a liar, and that she is a blackmailer and simulator. Had she kept her lips sealed we could not break through her shield. The court—I have a very high regard for your statement as toall that, but I cannot fixitin my mind that you are right. There was some further ar, ument on the matter und Judge Campbell finally decided the prosecution had the nght to go into the character of the defendant and for this purpose could traverse her whole life. In the course of his argument, Attorney Gallagher, in response to questions from the bench, stated that certain matters which he had brought out and which the court evidently thought bore on the ques- tion of character was immaterial, sayin that the other side was asleep. This raises @ laugh on all sides. Which side the serve a term in jail in the | Do you mean to say that you do not know | Te you ever called by others by that : question being absur whether you ever used the name of Sturgis for | | I was neve | | | I | | | ATTORNEY LOUDERBACK. | ment and then the witness replied in the affirmative. This caused great commotion through- out the courtroom, in which murmurs of surprise were distinctly audible. then continued: “How often?” “I passed through Albany about three years ago and attended church there on_my way to vizit iriends in other parts of New York.” “How many times did you attend church in Albany 2 “1 answered you once.” y once in your life you went to church Counsel once, 1ge of *“How long di time?” “I'spent the Sabbath there three here at any other time. “Where were you in 18787 vou, sir.”” rou tell {a wuat country you were in three vears ago. I have no oing any other time.” you remain 1n Albany at that years ago. 878 ““I'have no disposition to tell anything but d’s truth.” “What count “Idon't know “Were you i y were you in in 18787 “] can’t ““Were you in Alaski I can't tell you, sir.” “Were you in the Sandwich Islands?” At this stage the witness began to show decided indications of annoyance, not to suy anger, and replied testily: “You can take me over the whole globe and I couldn’t telt you.” The court—Were you in the flesh or in the tell you, sir.” | | spinit? Louderback—Were you in tne State of New York in 1 ““i can’t tell you anything about it.” *You were 1ot out of this physical world at thal time, were you, as the Judge in his ques- tion suggested ?" Gallagner—Objection on the ground of the Witness—I tell you, sir, I do not know. “Were you in Lynn ?” “I can’t tell.” “‘Were you in Massachusetts ?" “Ican’t tell.” “Were you in jail in Lynn?” “I know nothing of where I was in 1878.” “You don’t know whether or not you were in jail or not?” The court—Why don’t you know? You are a woman of culture and intelligence and ought 1o be able to_answer these questions or state the reason why you cannot answer. Gallagher—We claim the witness has the right 1o say she will not answer. fouderback (in’ an_ asider—Wé don’t want to et the witness into cuntempt. (To witness) ou don’t know, then, whether or not in 187 you were in jail? “No, sir.” Witness was then asked where she was in 1879 and 1880, and answered that she could not tell. When asked with reference to 1881 she replied: “I will tell you, sir. There is a blank in my {1ife on account ' of physical and mental in. firmities, and [ cannot tell you.” And to further questions as to where she was during the years from 1832 to 1887 inclusive she returned the answer that she did not know. Continuing the cross-ex- amination ex-Judge Louderback asked “Were you not arrested in 1886 in Albany and taken back to Massachusetis?"” Gallagher—Objection on the ground that the question had béen asked once and that the prosecution was bound by the answers given. Louderback—This woman has given some extraordinary testimony, and the evident un- truthfulness gives the Judge a wider latitude. We claim she is deliberately testifying falsely. No person outside an insane asylum would be- lieve her testimony. Her memory is remark, ably good on some things—on her interview with Dr. Brown—yet on these matters her mind is a periect blank. Some people may think she is adopting a clever dodge, but we believe it is an audacious attempt at perjury. Guilfoyle—Your Honor’s rulings, I would like to remark here, are not the same as when Dr. Brown was under cross-examination, The court (indignantly)—I don’t want to listen to any more of these insinuations. Iam trying to rule fairly, and you are almost guilty of contempt of court. Guilfoyle (apologetically)—I submit this, if your Honor please— The court—I don’t want to hear you. Objec- tion overruled. Witness—Iknow nothing of it,sir. That time is a blank. To !urtherfiextions as to where she was in 1887 and 1883, witness replied that she did not know. To the same question relative to 1889 she answered : “I think I was in Boston,” “Were ber 17, 1 “I kiow nothing, sir.” “During any of these years you say you know nothing about were you in an insane &sy- lum?”? “I don’t know, sir.” “You say in 1889 you were in Boston. What time was that?”. “1I can’t tell you exactly, sir.” “From that time you remember where you were, 4o you?” 3 “I had sufficient cause to remember.” (Sor- Towfully). “Then_from 1878 to the time were in Boston you say you don’t you were?” *“It was a blank in my life.” “Were you not for_thirty montns at hard labor in & jail in_the County of Essex, in Mas- sachusetts, from February 2, 18872 “‘I have no knowledge of it.” “Were you not in court, in the County of Essex, on or about February 2, 1887, sentenced for a crime?” I know nothing of it, sir.” “Don’t you remember making a speech in court?” “No, sir.”” “Were you ever in jail before you were in jail on the present charge "’ % “I know nothing about what you are talking about.” ‘Were you ever convicted of a felony and sentenced therefor in kssex County, Massa- chusetts?" §oumot arrested in Albany on Novem- oy you now where I Liave no knowledge of it.” u know & person by the name of Oliver Ditson?” “T knew him.” ““Where did you know him?" “Iam familiar with Boston, and have known of him for a great many years; when Iwasa child.” Do you know John C. Haynes?” 1 knew him.” “Charles S. Ditson?” o, sir.”” ever met him?"” “Never met him. about him.” “Did you ever execute a mortgage to Hayne or Ditson in connection with some pianos?” An objection was sustained. “Were you carrying on & piano business in Boston of anywhere else?” ““I have a very indistinct recollection of hay- ing been engaged in the piano business.” “When was ? “I assisted my husband in the business, I think, in 1874 or 1875.” “Was your husband engaged in that business in 18847 *“Ido not kuow. You ran question me till to-morrow morning and I will tell you only the God's truth.” (Deliberately and impressively.) “Do you know Mary E. Judkins?” “I can't tell you anything.” “What year was it you became blank 2’ I, Temember when we went to Maine in 18747 I gon’t know anything hen did you become blank in mind?” nen I think there was a darkening of my memory ; there wasa breach in my mental and physical system in 1874, but I can’t recail; it isa blank.” “When did you begin to awaken again? “I recall being at my father's house. It might have been in 1888 or 1889."” “When did your husband die?"” An objection was interposed at this point. Louderback (continuing)— how he terminated. Is he al Ve want to know ve? “I don’t know.” “When did you see him last?” “I can’t tell you.” “When did you see him first?” I saw him first I think in 1885.” “When were you married to your second hus- band?"’" “In 18 “Did he disappear during this blank?” “Idon’t know anything about it.” “Is he living or dead?” “I don’t know.” ‘“Ever hear jrom him? Don’t you know whether he is alive?” * don't know.” “How long did you live together?” “I don’t know.” “Before your memory failed you he was with you, and since then you have not heard from im 2" The court (as if discouraged)—It is apparent she won't answer any questions between 1874 and 1888, “‘Have you told any person since your arrest in this City that you were in the prison or House of Correction’in Massachusettc?’’ “‘There was a re; orter who came to me and said it wes alleged— The court—Have you told anybody that? Witness—A reporter came and said it was alleged, and I said, “I have nothing to say, g Louderback—Before you came to California did you krow a woman by the name of Baddin? “I'had no knowledge of any one by the name of Baddin. I never met with the name of Baddin before 1 came here.” “Did somebody accuse ney falsely to the name o No, sir.” Counsel for the prosecution then led witness through the story of her various meetings with Mrs. Baddin and Dr. Brown, without bringing to light any new develop- ments until the matter of the defendant’s means was touched upon, when the fol- lowing cross-examination ensted : Louderback—Were you then and are you now a woman of means? Qr u of obtaining rs. Baadin?” m nber the only money you had was ou earned by the sale of corsets. You did niot have & bank account?” “1 did, sis Witness then showed that she had cash and stock valued in the aggregate at about $2500, and that up to the 10th of last De- cember she had as a partner a Mrs. Myers. She further testified that no one was pres- ent at any of her interviews with Mrs, Baddin, but stated that she had told her partner about having engaged Mrs. Baddin as a canvasser to go into the country. She also admitted that she never knew the address of Mrs. Baddin, and could oniy recollect that Mrs. Baddin nad told her that she had kept a lodging-house on Fourth, Fifth or Mission streets, the wit- ness could not remember which. Nor could she recall having given the name of Mrs. Baddin to her partner. Counsel for the prosecution, after some objection by the opposing side, induced the witness to recite the story of her wander- ings from the Sunday preceding her arrest until she became an inmate of the prison. On Sunday, she said, she was at the house of a friend and at Sunday-school at Dr. Brown’s chureh. She stated that the friena’s name at whose house she was that day was Mrs. Frank French. She re- mained there Monday and Tuesday. Be- fore she accounted for her time on Wednes- day she addressed her inquisitor in the most impressive manner as follows: “If my whole life had been gone into not a man or woman would huve dared to show & mark on my life. Their attempt to do so would simply have been something horrible, Iam a married woman with & husband, and any one with common-sense knows that the physical condition of a woman varies very much. I think that Wednesday morning I called at & very dear friend of mine on Ellis street.’” Louderback—Who was it? “Mrs. Root, the mother of Doctor Root, sume- where in the 600 block. Iwished to rest and recuperate. She could not accommodate me and I went to a lodging-house on_the opposite side, which was Tecommended to me by my friend, and took a room. I don’t know the name of the lady who kept the lodging-house. 1 paid the room rent myself. I left there Friday to visit a friend of mine on Broadway. Her name is Mason. She livesin the 1100 block. On Saturday I came down to my own home on Geary street.” Louderback—You were away from home and business from Sunday until Saturday. Why were you away and not attending to business? ‘‘Because my business is not one of any im- portance at that time of the year. People don’t wish to buy those things at that time, and I wished to rest and took that time,” ~Did you leave any one at your place of busi- ness?” +No, sir. It was locked up during that riod.” “You slept there, too, did you not?” “Yes, sir; sometimes.” “When you left there were you 1n tears?”’ “No, sir; L am not a erying woman.” “No, sir. No, sir (indignantly)—I am no dodger. (Laughter in the courtroom.) I went to Mrs. French's house on her invitation.” ““You were going from place to place for the sake of Ee"lng a rest?” **And being with my friends.” Winess explained that she took the room in a lodging-hause opposite Mrs. Root’s in order to take advantage of the ?:th and other sanitary arrangements ere. Louderback (to court)—We offer this record of her conviction in Essex together with her sentence. Here a long discussion ensued as to whether the crime of the person men- tioned in the record was a felony or not. The court finally suggested that this matter be discussed at the nexc session of the court, as he would like to ask a few questions himself of the witness. This was agreed to and his Honor then took up the cross-examination of the defendant. The court—Mrs. Davidson, what church do you belong to? Witness—I joined the orthodox Congre, tional churehl in Sucksport, Me., in 1856. Henry K. Craig was pastor, Theyconxt—-’fim church is of the same de- .mental pursuits. nomination as the churcn of which Dr. Brown is pastor. Are you still a member of that rch? : cli‘lf\'u, sir. On the recommendation of Pastor Craig I became a member of Tremont Temple n 1992, a Bapti-t church. ? g I v 'you Sull & member of the Baptish chureh?” “f pelieve I am.” “Did you gei & letter from that church ta some otier church iu this City when you came here?” = “No,sir. Inever asked for it. Witness then explained that she ate tended Dr. Brown’s church and taught Sunday-school there because it was more convenient for her and the surroundiags were more congenial. His Honor then took up a new course by asking: “Why did you sign this paper (displaying the receipt and coniract given by her to Dr, Brown) as agent for Mrs. Jane Ehzabeth Bad~ din?” 9 Because Dr. Brown toid me to do it. Then you wrote a thing that Was not true because Dr. Brown dictated it, for you claimed that you acted as his agont and not as hers? “Ina certain sense I might have been her agent.” “What kind of a woman is Mrs. Baddin? Dee seribe her.” “She had a saliow complexion, was medium d, and on measuring tor her corsets Ifound hera little longer than the average woman. She had dark gray eves, wore & dark skuf{ black sacque, black hat'and a black-spotie 5 o veil. Did she ever come back since she got the No, sir.” On being asked whether Dr. Brown’s testimeny relative to wanting to_see Mrs, Baddin himself was true the witness ree plied : There is not & word of truth in it. tects wormen, and he will protect me. The hearing goes on at 1:30 o’clock this afternoon. God proe g NO LADY VISITORS. Rev. Dr. Law Tells How Pastors Can Protect Themseives From Schemers. Rev. Marshall Law of Oakland and pase tor of the Church of the Advent has given public notice that he wi'l not receive lady visitors at his church study and will not call on a lady as her pastor unless by ap- pointment and when her husband or somebody else is present. This definite rule, notice of which has been given from his pulpit, has caused quite a lot of talk. “I am very positive on this matter,” said Dr. Law yesterday, “and after the de« velopments in the Durrant case and the Brown trial I think I have ample justifica~ tion for the stand I have taken. I do not know that it should be so, but there always seems a sort of unhealthy senti- mentality between the ladies of achurch and the pastor. It may be harmless enough, but it lays the foundation for scandal and should not be tolerated. “Ever since I was ordained I have preached against such folly, but now I see the necessity for doing so more than ever. I cannot see the necessity for what is called ‘parochial visiting,” There is no need for it to-day, and I am opposed to i$, It is in most cases only an excuse to make a regular gossiping circuit, and in many cases results in scandal. I do not believe that a quarter of the charges laid against ministers by silly or designing women have a particle of truth in them, but I blame the ministers for laying themselves open to the charges by such indiscretion as paying unnecessary visits and receiving vistts from ladies at his study. ‘‘When old Bishop Worthington or- dained me back East he said: ‘Don’t let me hear of you receiving visits from any ladies in your church study.’ The idea was right, and I have always abided by it. I think there is far too keen a desire on thie coast for the pastor to visit and be visited. On nearly every church you see the pastor’s residence address and study hours, and I think this is wrong. Modern society has little use for the parochial visit or the study-caller. If a pastor is visiting_he should announce his coming aud invite several people to meet him. A married pastor is always in danger of schemes, and an unmarried man eannot, in my opinion, be fitted for a pastor. ¢No ladies need call on me at my study, for I shall ask them to go to the house, where Mrs. Law can keep us both com- pany.” A MODEL establishment, operated by skilled printers and binders. The Mysell-Roilins Co., 22 Clay. * NEW TO-DAY. TOTAL ABSTIENGE IHPOSSBLE. But Here Is Something Just aa Good. In spite of all that has been said and written by advocates of total abstinence it is indisputable that modern methods of work and living make the occasional and even frequent use of gentle stimulants highly beneficial if not absolutely necese sary to the great majority of men—es- pecially those engaged in business and Lack of exercise and tha excessive consumption of nerve force and vital energy consumed by the brain breeds sluggishness of the digestive system, which reacts on the brain. A corrective stimulant is needed. The curse of alcoholic and vinous liquors is that they over-stimulate and ecreate g morbid appetite for more. Peruvian Bite ters, though com%osed largely of old Cali~ fornia Brandy, has no such effect. It permits the healthy, stimulating effect of the brandy, but completely obliterates its tendency to create a morbid desire. Perue vian Biiters is a palatable but powerful tonic that impels sluggish functions to normal action; exselling cold, fevers, ma= larial poisons and other disease germs; building up the weak and convalescent, and by promoting a regilar and healthy appetite, perfect digestion, sound sleep, and steady nerves, tends to produce physi= cal perfection, good cheer and increase of human happiness. Mack & Co., San Francisco. All dealors and druggists. ABNOLUTE AUCTION SALE. ON ACCOUNT OF RETIRING FROM BUSINESS I WILL OFFER THE Entire Stock and Fixtures COLONEL A. ANDREWS The Diamond Palace, 221 Montgomery St, COMMENCING THIS DAY Triday, Jamary 10, 10:30 A M. And Continuing Daily until all is aisposed of, the stock consisting of The Finest Precious Stones, Watches, Jewelry, Silverware, Eto, Sale absolute without limit or reserve to close the business. JOHN H. FRENCH, Auctioneer,