The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, December 19, 1900, Page 2

Continued From First Page. conversation occurred between Mr. Spreckels and Mr. Warfleld Q.—Somebody brought the subject of the let- ter up? A.—Yes, sir. 1 occasjonally asked a question. —By the letter you mean the letter pub- 1ished in the Bulletin, as published in the Bul- letin? A d letter—yes, sir. —The purporte Q —And which you have identified here? A —Yes, sir. Q —The purported letter published in the Bul- fetin? A.—Yes, sir. Q.~The one that was shown to you yester- @ay and about which vou testified? A— r. Q. —1 will ask you what General Warfield sad to you at that time about the letter? SAID ARTICLE WAS CORRECT General Warfield Paid a Thou- sand Dollars to Secure the Release. 1 can remember the comver- t was that a letter was brought or sent h he refused to sign, drawn A Richards, or some such he spoke of him as the Echroeder; as to the e ot sure. It sounded like Rickards or some such name as that. Am I correct in the of the mttorney? Mr Maguire—The name of the attorney is not quite correct: Ricketts, 1 think, would be the name at attorney A~—And he declined to sign that letter, for the reason, as I under- #tood him, that it made an absolute denial of all of this. And General Warfield's attorney drew up a letter which he consented to sign, saying that he had no personal knowledge of the truth of these things. And that letter was taken back, to the rty, who said that he would sign at letter and give a check for £1000 providing they would release Lim from the lease. asking you now about the let t ase Of° Bim from the —As nearly m well, I an t about gone outside.of the limits it 1 stated to you that he signed the nces? [ ¢ his own per- * these things were true; «ign some letter which he sign 4 to sign presented to e he did not want to say that he not trye. you that he had. signed the ad read in the Bulletin? at he had signed the letter 2 a8 it was published in the we were discussing that. We aid re us at the time. ssing the letter pub- e alscu 3 lletin? letter, yes, sir, purporting to be the s es which you 2th e ¢ was it within & while after that be & guess' on many things to attend tme was not as long as & month was some time after that It might haye been as long & two or A.—Yes, sir; it might have been. Q —It was no longer than that, was it? A —1 han ink so. Bulletin Denial. Maguire—We offer in evidence t ter which the witness, the manager of The on the 2th of Octo b he had this cou- Warfield within two bject to that as incom- d that it is a failure t> etent evidence to estab- after argument)— think nse has offered evidence of the e other side on cross- to go fully -into the is proper cross-ex- testimony, that fs is the idea. I admit that 1 first instance. to it on the ground shown. and I suggested the Bulle- in? the ground that it rebuttal. It is and incompetent for the pur- this proving or rebutting the presump- nowledse surt—The objection is overruled. An- publication refer- about the conversation I | he had signed it under | ve stated? | 1 us, Mr. Leake, how soon of October, 18987 1f | pt to give the date, | my | r that did not impress | A.—T did not direct anything to be published about it Mr. Maguire—I will read this letter as pub- lMshea in the Bulletin. The Court—The. objection now to the intro- duction of this purported copy is overruled and the exception noted for the defendant. Mr. Preston—1 might state my grounds fully in_the record The Court—The question is whether you are referring to_the particular article. A.—Well, I am not referring to that article now, I am referring to— M. Maguire (interrupting)—We object to any atement of that conversation concerning any Thatter excet about this letter. Mr. Preston—We have a right to have the whole of the conversation touching the sub- ject matter that forms the basis of this litiga- tion. | The Court—I think so. because it béars upon | the Sublect in controversy Mr. uire— Well, we will note an excep- | tion.” We abject upon the ground that it is im- material, jrrelevant and incompetent and not redirect examination. THe Court | the ‘conversation which vou have already tielly brought cut. Proceed Mr. Maguire—And we note an exception to your Honor's ruling. A.—Mr. Spreckels asked General | Warfield-1f he had told me at this | interview that he gave up the lease, | or wanted to give up the lease on necount of the conduct of Baron von Sehroeder, nnd he sald he did. He | an1d, “Is the article as published true?” He satd, “Substantially =o: 1 told Mr. Leake that” He was asked if he would go on the witness stand and say o and he said he would. He weos asked tn regard to this letter. He sald that he wrote that letter belleving that he was saying that he did not know of these episodes of his”own personal knowledge, but, he said, “I did not mean to convey the idea that com- plaints were not made to me, and that I had not heard these things." He 4 that Mr. Walter Dean said te me, “I know of six prominent people who have refused to go to that hotel—-" Maguire (interrupting)—We want to ob- We object to the witnoss retailing any tatement made by Mr. Warfleld after the pub- lication of this article concerning what had been €aid to him by other people. We object It is relating to the remainder of par- 1 “Irrelevant and incompetent and not re- direct examination. . The Court—L think the whole of that con- versation is admissible so far as it relates to this publication. Mr. Maguire—We note an exception. A—He satd, “Mr. Walter Dean told me in making his complaint | about the conduct of the Baroi | know of six people, prominent peo- ple. who refused to g0 to your ho- | tel. Now, if I know of six, how ‘ many more are there?' " He further | stated that Mra. | Mr. Maguire (interrupting)—This is all sub- | sect to_the same objection and exception | “The Court—Very well Baron Was Shunned. A.—1 can't think of the lady’s name. My | recollection 1s that she was sort of in charge there | M. Preston (interrupting)—Hatherwi | A, Miss Hatherway, that the name. He had received a letter and brought it to him and read it to him, in which a certain lady ked if Baron von Schroeder was at the hotel: if 50 that she would not come | there while he was present. Mr. Maguire—This is subject to the objection atd exception The Court—I understand that all this is sub- ject to the objection and exception. Mr. Maguire-Yes, subject to the objec- tion and exception. Mr. Preston: Q.—Was there anything sald a that conversation? T just want to think for a moment, kave been interrupted so often. I know that Mr. Spreckels was very particular to ask him at_my suggestion— The Court (Interrupting)—You are arked for the conversation. stmply Let that go out. then. But t! e conversation lasted a long time. Mr. Preston: Q—Did you feel after this con. versation with General Warfleid took place, fubsequent 1o the date of this purported letter. that you had done any injustice to the plain. | tiff, Von Schroeder, or been misied at all in your information concerning jim of the facts | Shich led up to the publication of the allsged litel in this case, or that there was any cause | for a retraetion ‘or modification, as a matter [ of justice to the plaintiff? | “r. Maguire—Objected to as immaterial, ir- relevant and incompatent for any purpose. No Injustice to Plaintiff. | The Court—1 think in reply to your cross- examination they have a right to that testi- | mony | Mr. Maguire—His belief is immaterial we | submit. The Court—Not on that question, Judge, in | mitigation of damages. Mr. Maguire—] think s0; a statement of his pelief, or a statement of what occurred may be given and the jury's judgment may be all right, but a statement of what he believed ie_not. | The Court—A latement that he believed it | & not necessarily binding on the jury. It is for the jury to deterrune as to the weight of his testimony, but they have a right to do it. Mr Maguire—We object to it as immaterial, irrelevant and incompetent The Court—The objection is overruled. What s the question? (Questfon read by the reporter.) Mr. Maguire—Now, we desire to make the | additional objection 'tiere that the bellet or | Sadgment or conclusion of the witness at that time was immaterial, because it appears that he was not nting _the defendant ut that time, but that the defendant was person- ally present. We desire to add that ground to_the grounds y stated. alread: Mr. Preston—Then the whole conversation ghould be stricken out. The gentleman cannot blow hot_and . He cannot bind the de- fendant, Spreckels, by an interview with Gen- ““aell, that part of it will be repetition, | 1 think 1 have given about the substance of it. | » it on the ground that it is wholly tmma- | r | Mr. | ted that it was released THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1900. BARON'S ESCAPADES ARE EXPLOITED IN COURT The Court—The objection is overruled. Mr. Maguire—Note an exception. yA-There scemed to bo three questions in Mr. Preston—Well, answer them seriatim, if you can. A.—I want to answer it intelligibly, and I would like to have you read one part at a time; I don’t want to be misled. Mr| Gallagher—Inasniuch as the witness de- sires it done In that way I will object that there are three quastions involv and It should be segregated. \ The Court—Well, I will require you to segre- rate Mr. Preston—Read the first part of that ques- on. (By gol‘n to and including the words ‘Von Schroe- er."") Mr. Maguire—We make the same objection and the objection is overruled and the excep- tion noted ? A.—1 felt that I had not done him any in- Juetice— The Court—Arswer yes or no. A t By direction the reporter read the seco: part of the question from the word Schroeder” to the words “in this c A.—No No Causa for Retraction. Th‘; Court—The same objection, do I under stand?, Mr. Maguire—The sime objection. The Court——The same ruling and exception. (By direction the reporter then read tne re- mainder of the question.) Mr. Maguire—The same objection. The Court—The same ruling. Mr. Maguire—Exception. A.—No Mr. Preston—Your answer is No? A.—Yer, sir. Mr, Preston—That is all. r. Maguire—I want to ask you, Mr. Warfield say about the letter to Miss Hath- erway, as to the date, or the date at which she received 1t? A.—He did not give any date that I know of, lhdnn'| think he was asked any question about that Q.—Did he or did he not state that it was after the publication in The Call, after the 2th of October, 18997 A.—I don't think that question was asked and 1 don’t think he stated anything from which T could judge whether it was before or after. Q.—Did he state when it was that Mr. Déan had told him that he knew of half a dozen people who weuld not go to the Hotel Rafael, and that if he knew of half a dozen who could tell how many more there were, or something 10 that effect? Did he tell you when Mr. n had made that statement to him? A.~No; but 1 know what the impression was that wae made on me. There was no date given. Q.—1 d1d not ask for the impression. 1 asked you— The Court the impressiol Mr. Maguire—I asked you if he stated when? A.—1I did not ask him for any date. Q--Did he not state that it was after the publication of The Call article, October 25, 18992 A.—He aid not. B Q.—Did Mr. Warfleld tell you that Mr. Dean went back to the hotel after having made that statement to him, and after the publication of The Call article? A —He did not tell me that. The question was not 8 Q. am talking about that conversation at which vou and Mr. Spreckels and Mr. Warfleld What aid (interrupting)—Never mind about n. were ;resent? A 1 have no recollection of his saying that Q.-Did he at any time tell you? J Mr. Preston—I object to “at any time.” That is irrelsvant A~ Not that T know of. he Court—Well, he says, of, " ‘agy way Mr. Maguire—That 1s &1l Question of Dates. Mr. Preston—You were proceeding to state in your testimony why you did not ask General Warfield for the date of the communication from Mr. Dean, when you were interrupted? Mr. Gallagher—I don't remember the witness proceading with that The Court—I don’t remember that he was. Mr. Preston—It is admitted in this case that the release of General Warfleld as the lessee of the Hotel Rafael was executed on October 25, 1899, and that they left a few days there- “‘Not that I know few days thereafter. Their lease was termi- ed on that day. the 25th of October, 1569. Deimas suggests, executed by whom? By Warfleld on one side— Mr. Gallagher (interrupting)—If it ls admit- that includes of course | & legal release by whoever made the original release. We are willing to admit that, by the parties to the lease. The Court—Have you the original lease, gen- tiemen? Mr. Preston—Well, it was through the plain- @M, Von Schroeder, that the release was exe- cuted. I don’t care just about the techaical form of it Mr. Maguire—T don’t know that that is ma- terial at all. The fact is that whatever the lease wae it was duly released by the proper yurties on the 25th of October, 1589, The Court—Well, will you admit . that the lease was executed by any particular parties, Judge? Mr. Meguire—I don't know anything about that. 1 have never examined it and I dom't care to admit that. The Court—If it is material you will have to get the lease. Mr. Preston—That Is all. The Court—That is all, gentlemen, COURT’S RULING UPON EVIDENCE Certain Testimony as to Miscon- duct Away From Hotel Admissible. Frank L. Perkins was recalled and de- fendant's counsel asked: “What did you see at Pastor's?” Maguire objected, and the jury was ex- cused while argument on the point at issue should be heard. Maguire made the argument for plain- tiff and Delmas reiled for defendant, holding that testimony relative to scan- dalous conduct. of the Baron and his friends that injured the good name of the hotel was admissible, even if the acts re- direction the reporter read the question | complaint was pfiblished, and that alle- gations as to what took place at Pastori's Were not included either in the article or in the answer, and hence testimony as to conduct at that place was not admissible. The court, however, reserved its formal ruling until after the noon recess. At 1:45 o'clock, when the court recon- vened, Judge Angellotti said: The court announced before adjournment its rulings on the question asked of Witness Per- kins. Having in mind the particular question that was asked the witness at the making of the rule. there may be some misconception as o the eéxtent of the ruling of the court. It was intended by the court at this time simply to hold that testimony of specific acts of im- propriety occurring beyond the limits of the Hotel Rafeel would not, in the Judgment of the court, be admissiblé, standing by them- selves. I'have noticed that in the alleged li- belous article there is one charge that he was asked 1o fesist and respect the feelings of the men and women who could not be justly asked to submit without protest to insult. I am in- clined to think that probably testimony~of spe- cific acte going to support that allegation, al gh_occurriny admissible 1 notice also in the answer an allegation to the effect that the plaintiff went with guests of the hotel to resorts near the town and re- turred to the hotel with a party In an intoxi- cated condition. Probably testimony of that cheracter would be admissible also. Under this ruling defendant’s cotinsel again sought to secure from Perkins tes- timony as to n tort's. Pelae nked:vhut happened at Pastor{'s. “‘Did you see plaintift at Pastori’s con- duct Rimself toward a‘woman in an ob- jectionable manner, sald woman being a Buest of the hotel?” Objection was made and sustained and the witness was. dismissed. R CHAMPAGNE IN BEER GLASSES Waiter Tells of the Baron's Wine Partles in the Clubhouse. & beyond the hotel, might be Bernard Peters was called to the stand He had been a waiter at the Hotel Rafael during the months from May to Septem- ber, 1895, being employed in the club- house, which contains the hotel barroom. billiard-rooms, cardrooms and a lunch- rcom. Witness described the location of these rooms and a broad veranda with chalrs for guests. i “Were you acquainted with Baron von Schroeder?"” was. "hen did you usually see him?" “Often from 12 o'clock on until 2 and 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning.” “Were women frequently in the club- house es. id you see the Baron in their com- pay uétcnxlonally e T atd e ““What would they be doing?” “They would be drinking together. Sometimes the women would drink more than they could stand.” “How about the Baron?” “Well, he would, too; in other words, they would all be drunk together."” ‘““Were dishes ever broken?" “Yes; often dishes were thrown around and smashed to smithereens. Occasion- ly - tablecloths - were pulled off with dishes and all and the dishes broken upon the floor.” remember an incident about a “On one occaston I saw the young Baron crawling out of a window In the presence of the Baron and the women. 1 often found broken dishes on the walk back of the clubhouse, where they had been thrown over the roof.” Wine Glasses Too Small. “Do you remember any conduct as to a wine party at which regular glasses were not used? Now be careful; do not men- tion the names of any women.” “On one occasion I was ordered to serve wine in a cardroom of the clubhouse. In the room - ere the Baron and his brother Alexis anu two ladies. I served it in the regular glasses. Later I was rung for again and the glasses had been broken. I brought other glasses and they swept them off the table and ordered me to bring something larger. I brought beer schooners back with me, and when I reached the room each of the men occu- ied a chair and had one of the ladles on gl- lap. The wine was poured out in the schooners and they drank it.” ““Were they apparently drunk?"” ‘They certainly were apparently drunk.” . “What were the circumstances con- nected with young Alexis crawling out of the window?" “It was a little party, women I have just told. of. “Of the wine-schooner party?” Y “'ehlt was the condition of Alexis?" “He seemed to be drunk and was very with the same sick. "V\;gra you called upon to serve sup- TS “Yes. We closed the lunchroom at 12 o'clock, but I frequently served lunches and wine after that hour.” Women Paid for Wine. “Who used to pay for the wine?"” e question was objected to, and Préston said that his purpose was to show that the women frequently paid for the wine, and that he sought testimony to establish a direct allegation of defen- dant's answer. The court overruled the objection. The witness answered: “Sometimes the Baron and sometimes the women.’ “Were either of these women married?” “One of them." 2 “Did you nave any conversation with her about a wine card?”’ “Did these four remain together during these evenings, or did they separate? :‘t"g‘; the wine always drunk in the card- “‘Sometimes in the grounds, and some- | dered to turn it omt. n the cardrooms.” von Schroeder ever ask you as to where the others were?” “He aid.” wWhat others did he ask about?” n'.rg,e Baron Alexis and the woman with 'Where were they at the time?” M: fi:\'de objected and the objection was ad you seen the brother leave the presence of the Baron?'" Plaintift’s counsel kept interposing ob- jections. to the line of questioning, Pres- ton contending that it was permissible on the ground that objectionable conduct on the part of the brother Alexis and known to the Baron made the latter culpable. To a sllghgiy different question the witness "T'told the Baron that Alexis had left, taking with him a bottie of wine and two glasses.” "'What did the Baron do?"’ ‘“‘He ordered a pint of wine and took it inte & 5 times | “Dia cardroom. ho was there?” “l understand I am not to mention names of women." “That is right. Under no circumstances are you to do that in your Was' a woman there?” A married woman,” +What did you see occur there?” After a while I was called again by the bell. I found the lady on the Baron's lap, .or rather reclining against him. She see downhearted and was crying. He sald, ‘Never mind, dear, I am in the same fix.' I served the wine and she signed the wine card. “Where was the Baron's right hand?" “On_the shoulder of the lady, his arm around her."” ““Where was her left hand?” ‘He held it in his left.” er other hand free to sign the wine card?” Fen.” “Did you ever have any conversation with the Baron concerning his wife?"” Objection was made and Preston re- framed the question thus: “Did the Baron ever give you money to watch his wife, to see that she did not in. terfere with his parties?" Maguire objected and the question was argued at much length containing_an admission on the part of plaintiff. The answer of witness was: “He did not.” “Did the Baron ever tell you to warn him if the Baroness came over to the clubhouse 2"’ “He did.” Her Favorite Coon Song. “What was their conduct at these little wine parties in regard to singing?”’ “Well, they used to sing a great deal, generally coon songs.” “Do you remember song?" “One of the ladies was fond of singing ‘He Certainly Was Good To Me.” "™ Plaintiff's counsel took the witness. “‘Where have been employed for the last three or four months?” n the Palace Hotel?" k‘ you been in the employ of Mr. e 1 was for a few weeks, hunting up [ritnesses who knew facts such as I re- iated. “How did you come to go to Mr. Leake?" “I was talking with Harry McKenzle, a waiter, and told him of my_ experiences at the Hotel Rafael in 1898. He said that he was looking for a man with such evi- dence; that I might go and see Mr. Leake or not, but in any case I would be sub- penaed.” “Did M 7 No, he sald nothing of the kind.” r. Peters, how often did you see the Baron on the grounds as late as 4 o'clock.” “I will not say that I saw him there that late.” “How often aid you see him as late as 3 o'clock?” everal times, I should say.” 'Did the Baron join in the singing in the cardrooms?” . ““He sometimes joined in the refrain.” Did you say you ever saw the intoxicated?” eertl.\nlr as he lyi any particular cifen:lq say there was money in n have seen him intoyicated.” ing on the floor?” No, he wi sitting in his chair or walking about.” Was he able to talk intelligently?” “I cannot say that he was. He often ked a lot of nonsense.” “What were your relations to Baron von Schroeder while you were at the hotel?" “He treated me as a servant and I treat- him as a gentleman.” “Your feeling for him was friendly, was it not?” “No more so than my feeling for any | one else in a similar position. LIGHT TURNED OFF ON PORCH Baron and Male and Female Companions Superior to Hotel Rules. Edward R. Moss was called. He was a waiter employed at the Hotel Rafael as an extra man for a few days in July, 1899, He was employed at serving drinks in the club rooms. “Did you see the plaintiff in the club- house at nights during that time in com- bably il conv o = 3 7 v was withdrawn. lieation whe mader T08® of it| Mr. Maguire (interrupting) Tl WA 10 %t it | !ts immediate vicinity. The question, was| “Did_you Know the Baroness von : It might have happened during | o Lot e P That it It 1s competens, | aTEUed at length, and at its close Judge | Schroeder?" the women." g East or something of that kind, but | | Foivans o material at ail the. presence of | Angellotti sald that in his Judgment such | I did.” "1 repeat the question. Was there any knowledge of it g ke 2% A ime “nay | testimony was not admissible Wwithin the | ‘“Were either of the women at these | marked attention to any one of the 0 atrect anvihing to e | Bl chomee e aspect of 1t I withdraw that | pleadings. The anewer of defendant ad- [ wine parties the Baroness?” ladies? about it | Part of our objection. mitted that the article referred to in the | “They were not.” “Yes, to one of them.” .HWW%%FWW+++WW%%WW+++%W COURT BLUSHES WHEN MRS, SITH READS LETTERS Bhe Makes All Sorts of Ac- cusations Against Husband. There are some points of pleading and practice that Mrs. Josephine Smith, who, in propria persons, is conducting her de- fenee 1o her husbard’s action for divorce, is unable to mentally assimilate. When she is confronted with these tangied knots it is difficult for her to conceal her pigue. On one occasion yesterday she ssked the court to defer the reading of one letter written by her to her husband until she could consult with her former attorney, Samuel M. Shortridge, and be pdvised as to its admissibility. Judge Daingerfield expressed his regard for Mr. Shortridge’'s opinion, but. stated that he hardly believed that it would alter the court’s opinion as to whether or not it were admissible, and it was ordered read. Charles H. Smith, cashier of the South- ern Pacific Company, the plaintiff in the action, was on the stand all day answer- ing as to the truth of a multitude of nasty charges made nst him by wife {n_);um sritten Jrom time to Hme Mrs. th read her own letters, and sto- ically waded through those ns that, from their vulgar nature, caused the court displeasure. 'Ahl‘l dey Judge Dain- sproeld Maten chant these letters. the I Taente of Mre. Smith to her husband ss contained in these letters are several would “flerce” in the ordiaary dl\-m: sction. e of these milder guotations follow: “Yesterday the strong arm 'was raised against his own father in de- fenee of his mother's virtue. Let counter be en ‘warnl; you. * I venture to say that in San Francisco no sane man of your age wouid dréss in such a suit as you appeared in last Sabbath. 1 suppose you shaved your face in order to have it correspond with your boylsh get-up. * * ° You must procure a divorce from me, your wife, and on the proper grounds, else charge you at once to forsake flour pres- ent companions in vice, or I, y®ur lawful wife, will hold you responsiblé personally for the degrading insuit offered to me and our son and to the sacred relation- ship 1 bear to you.” Smi in response to the question of his aticrney, Foshay Walker, said that he deduced 'from the statement “‘will hcid ¥Ou res| sible personally,” that his wife intended to do him viclence. Other -extracts from the letters read: “It g 0 my husband, were not already & thief, the meanest kind of a thief. ¢ & ¢ The race track and tbe Maison Tortoni are your haunts, and at both places you squander the money of the railroad com- ny. * * * Your uncle, N. T. Smith, thought that after 1 was compelled to separate from vou that I would turn to him with edmiring eyes, but I never looked upon him as anything more than my husband’s uncle. * * ¢ ank God, our son has gt < P ¥ strong, fine fel- iow, and if he laid his strong young hands on that old scoundrel there wouid not be much left cf him. * * * If you do not prove the truth of your charges Afllnn me I will kill you. * * ¢ I will Yiga & my life for mye * am she wrote in_one rove it. 1f you bother ny tell all about the CUff House— last word. the aded thief, e Attorney Walker. yet committed a mur- der,” responded Mrs. , tartly. The letter was han to Dain- rfield. It looks like murder. guess t is murder.” the ocourt. ““Well, erv,r;u no murder,” pleaded ‘ln. Sm:th. “"There was no murder. Let t go out.” “'We contend that the word is mur- " Walker. “We contend that this hacged murder fe,”” and into the record it went, t her: with nnrlfi all the other th had been et charged by his wife with A ter ‘written by N son of letter lent with s knowledge of matters amatory, which he sald he had gained at lect givén from time to xl:n to lh.e class Fmnmers.of Thich B Tee,t mimicy Smith. A few of the oI advice from the son to the father, ting those too scientific to look well in print, read: To-day I return to school, but before going I feel it is my unpleasant duty to give you advice for your' welfare. 1 suppose that you realize the fact of my belng nearly 17 years 0ld and almost full grown * * * Would you like to see your son sneak into the den at 21§ Powell street and commit the crimes. * ¢ ¢ 1 now fully understand the enormity of your crime and the disgrace of the name you have handed down to me. My very blood boils when 1 realize that I am your son and that your blood flows through my veins. * face bears the traces of excesses. a son’s adyice and don’t, I g:,ly. force me to forswear the name which 1 hope and wish to make a proud one. * * * You are too old a man to get so excited mere bout night. 1 wou!g over a at the Olymplc last Friday ltke to see my father dignified and more keeping with his age. Not a letter was read during the day harge more o that did not contain a ci T less shocking in its nature inst the plaintiff. To every charge Smith entered an emphltlg denial. To-dtflnlln. Smith will open the cross-examination. This scene between husband and wife promises at least to be dramatic, WILL MEET AGAIN TO DISCUSS PHILOLOGY Eminent Scholars Plan an Interesting Meeting at Mark Hopkins Institute of Art. ‘The Philological Association of the Pa- cific Coast will hold its second annual sion at the Mark Hopkins Instituté of Art, CalMfornia_and on_streets, San Francisco, on Friday and Saturday, De- oo Ehiversity’of ‘Calfornia: the. Lajsad e Unive 0] N tanford :un%r‘ Unlvudtz‘ug“th. Uni- of Ore,vn will deliver addresses. open] session at n: o'clock Professor 5 ntment of committees, papers, length to and_discy B. Anderson, the Verse in Shaki Nutting, Califor Contrary to treasurer, and the ap- twenty minutes, will &mu"‘ as follows: e tructio; Frofieor K. G Rendtorff, Stantord: - Problem of Modern German nynm pGy mu.é';' oa"hcg‘_ mm& in the Life of Rol Greene. oiog T s 3 g B ond . e GIVES ANOTHER MILLION DOLLARS the University of Chicago. ’ 2 gfl CAGO, !tJ‘:e lllfTAt t'ho en‘nvgfiuon ses e University of icago President Harper mnwneedl’thn John Rockefeller had made another gift of $1,- 500,000 to the institution. Of this sum $1.- 000,000 is to be as an endowment fund t and the university is to derive the benefit of the income from it from year to year. It is also sti fim is to be in the university’s name and it is to be oot dered its absolute property for all e. used tion of leunlvenlty press buil a of the structure to be devoted to a Before m public Mr. Rockefeller's t gltt Dr. upheid in emphatic i right of the professors of the nlvtnl!fh of to t speech. The earnestness wi SILISBURY TALKS OF ADING POOS Makes a Royal Gift to Suffering Among Working People Declared Disgrace to Civilization. ——s LONDON, Dec. 18.—At the annual con- ference of the National Union of Conser- vative Associations to-day Lord Salfs- commenting on the ~remarkable a lon from a Radical T stronghold, remarked that the ?nly Ism as found where the burn! Question hot the poor. Conservatives, he ad heal habi Alluding to said if tl wi pire and testimony. | Juage Angelluidt | held that the evidence was permissible as | “Did you ever have any conversation concerning lights?” “Yes. The light on the porch was turned out. I turned it on and was or- I sald the orders were that it should be kept turned on, but they again turned it out. The plaint- iff_his brother and the lady were on the porch. After the light was out you could see some one was sitting there, but could not see what they were doing. “Did you see any conduct out of the ordinary?” : “The lady was sitling on the Baron's ap. “Was sheshis wife?” “She was not.” On cross-examination witness said he did not know which of the three turned the light out. “Did Mr. Leake ever promise to get you a position on the police force of San Francisco?" asked Maguire, ““No, sir. That Is a position I would not care to accept.” “Did you get any money except your witness fees?"” “No, sir, I did not.” WINE WAS FOR HER BOY ALEX Quiet Little Party of Four That Had Use for But Two Chairs. Willlam 8. Ballard, a barkeeper who | worked at the Hotel Rafael for a month | in 1897 and through the summer of 1598 | as manager of the clubhouse, was called | to the stand. He had often seen the Baron at the clubhouse late at night with ladies. ‘What conduct did you observe?” was asked by defendant's counsel. | “There were often wine parties, four be- | ing present—the Baron, his brother and | two ladies, one of them married, the other single.” “Did they pair off? Did the Baron have an especial companion?’ “I never saw them separate but onc “Was there much noise?"” Not except singing.’ Any dishes broken “Oh, yes, dishes were broken—thrown out of the window. Lots of glasses were broken. The Baron paid for them. ““What did they drink?" “Usually four bottles of wine.” “Who paid for it?” “Generally the Baron. The married woman sometimes pald for it.” “What did they drink out of?" Generally beer glasses.' Do you remember any particular occa- n? “Once late in July I was ordered to serve a bottle of wine. Soon the bell rang again, and as 1 went into the wineroom the unmarried woman had the bottle of wine and she said, ‘No, this is for my_boy, Alex, and me,' and the other lady ordered another quart of wine for herself and the Baron.” “How were they sitting?" “In two chairs, the women on the men's laps.” : “The married woman on the Baron's ap? Rshe was."” *“Was her husband in the hotel at the time?"" ““He was a guest, but I think was away at_the time.” “Did you ever have any conversation with the Baron -about his wife?” Objection was made and overruled. “One night the Baron and these three came Into the clubhouse. The Baron sald to me, ‘Has the Baroness been over here this evening? I said she had been, but had gone back. He said, “Will you do me a favor? I said yes, and he put a five- dollar note into my hand and said for me to tell him if the Baroness came back to the clubhouse. HUSBAND WAS HOTEL GUEST Baron's Misconduct in Hotel Proper as Well as in Clubhouse. Gus Lally was called. He had worked as a walter at the Hotel Rafael in the summer of 1898, being employed in the clubhouse. He often served wine to the Baron's little parties. At some of these the lady signed most of the wine cards. He related more tales of broken dishes, giasses, singing and shouting. “They made what I would call a ‘rough house,’ said the witness. “Did you ever see the Baron take any liberties with the wome: . “No, nothing more than just fooling." “What do you mean by fooling?" “Oh, wrestling and scrambling around the room. Raymond O'Neill was called. He was employed at the Hotel Rafael in the sum- mer of 1898 as a bellboy and later as a rter. “Did you ever see the plaintiff coming from the room of a ed woman? Objection was made by Maguire on the ground of irreievancy and remoteness of the occurrence. It was overruled and an excepti noted. Witness answered: “I di qurl;xer questions were objected to, and Preston said his purpose was to idenufy the woman with the one with whom the Baron had been seen so often in the club- house. The questions were allowed and witness said that she was the same mar- ried woman. Bride Goes to Pastori's. William H. Jewell was called. He was driving & bus in San Rafael in 1%/ and $56 "fic " testified that he frequentiy saw Baron von Schreceder during the summer £ 189a. 0"[)m you see the plaintiff on the hotel grounds one night? “] saw him on Bell avenue, near the hotel stables, one night about 10 or 11 o'clock.” “How many were there in the party?" A bride and groom, a young lady and the Baron and a couple I did not . 1 was there with a carriage that lnwbe.n :rdmd. The bride directed the ADVERTISEMENTS. ALL RIGHT IN BISCUITS But a Poor Medicine. ommon soda is all right n its place and adispensible in the kitchen and for cooking and washing purposes, b was never intended for medicine, and peo- Ple who use it as such will some day re it. use of soda to relleveheart- .n= sour stomach is a habit which i ractice - of le almost dail; ana one which raught with - Soda gives only temporary relief, in the end the stomach trouble gets worse seating of the party and sald another) couple was coming. She said for me to direct them to_follow to Fairfax and the Baron sald to Pastori’s. The other couple soon came out of the hotel grounds.™ “Who_was the man?” “h;‘Ban Alei;!,; 2 o Vhat became of that couple?” ~Ihey walked Dack mta the hetel grounds. “When did you next see the party?” “They came in about 1 o’clock, in one of the rigs, but the Baron was not with the“pmy. “When did you next see Baron von Schroeder?” “About 3 o'clock_in the morning, on Petaluma avenue. He was In a rig with his_brother.” “Whern_did you see the Baron last that morning?” “He left the rig and entered the hotel grounds by a side entrance.” “Did you see the bride again that morn- g2 ““Yes, with her sister. She was taken to the hotel.”™ i “What was her apparent condition® “She was drunk.” “What is the nature of Pastori's?™ “A roadside house, where liquor is sold ]nndd fine dinners served—the finest in the and." At this point the court adjourned until 10:15 o’clock this mornin; in, ADVERTISEMENTS. B. KATSCHINSKI, PHILADELPHIA SHOE CO. 10 Third St., San Francisco. Cheaper Than Ever, CROCHET SLIPPERS HAND KNITTED CROCHET SLIPPERS, with fleece lined soles. Ladies’ sizes, 3 to §, in Black Red S0a Misses’ -70e Childs' sizes, § to 10, in Red 80c Infants’ sizes, 3 to 7, In Red.. 30c MEN'S EMBROIDERED EVERE OR OPERA SLIPPERS, with pa leather trimming, reduced to 75e. g Black Satin Quilted. MISSES' and CHILDREN'S BLACK QUILTED SATIN, FUR TRIMMED JULIETS, with spring heels. Infant R T 85 i sizaa, $14 to 1) Misses Sizes, 1103 t0 3 e EHOE ORDERS-If you desire to make a present and do not know tha size, buy a shoe order. Country orders solicited. PHILADELPHIA SHOE CO. 10 THIRD ST. San Francisco. . R TICITTEE WSS S STATEMENT ~— OF THE — CONDITION AND AFFAIRS — OF THE — CONNECTICUT MUTUAL LIFE INSURAKCE COMPANY F HARTFORD, IN THE STATE OF COXN- necticut, on the Jist day of December D. 1399, and for the year ending on that da made to the Insurance Commissioner of t"s S of California, pursuant to the requ ments of Section 613 of the Political Code said State. ASSETS. Net value of Real Estate owned by the Company coeecnieen . SELGILINT 33 Amount of Loans secured by Bond and Mortgage on Real Estate.... 26,198,867 54 Amount of Loans secured by pledge of Bonds, Stocks or other market- able securities as collateral Premium notes and loans in any form taken in payment of pre- mtums on polictes now in force. Cash market value of all Stocks and Bonds owned by the Company Amount of Cash deposited in Ba: Interest due and accrued. o Rents due and accrued....... Net amount of premiums in process of collection and of deferred pre- nks LIABIL) 3 Ciatms for death iosses and matured endowments, due and unpaid..... Claims for death losses and matured endowments in process of adfust- ment, or ed but not due.. 42,285 9 Claims resisted by the Company. 2 Net present value of all the out- standing policles. computed ae- pert- with cording to the Combined Ew ence Tables of Mortality, four per cent Interest. . Amount of all unpaid dtv! po holders... other Habilitie Total Liabilities. INCOME. for premiums on new Cash received for sale of annu: Cash received for interest.. Cash received for rents.. - Cash received from all other sources Total Income.. EXPENDITURES. Cash paid for losses and matured Cash paid for surrendered policies. Cash_paid for dividends to policy holders Cemmisstons Daid to agents . Salaries and other compensation of exce; officers and empioyes. ot agents ::‘1 medical examiners... 18401 3 © Salaries traveling expe Sl 7 04 2510 11 can - Cash paid for rents... b M:‘uwrmmln‘m s e , 1900 THAN F. PECK, Notary Public. A. K P. HARMON, DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT, Pacific Coast Agencies. F. R. NOYES, General Aget, Rooms 30-31-32 MTLLS BUILDING, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL NA