Mliss :: :: University of Virginia Library

The case came up at the day appointed. The
court-room was thronged. Mrs. Smith, serene
and handsome, sat by the side of her counsel
and, within supporting distance, were several
fashionable friends. Near her, devouring her
beautiful face with his greedy eyes, was young
Joseph Fox, whose infatuation was the talk of
his circle.

The possible dramatic effect of the trial was
impaired by the order in which the rules of the
court required evidence to be presented. Had
Mrs. Smith been called upon the stand, and testified
as she had at the preliminary examination—that
she was the widow of the late John
Smith, of Smith's Pocket—the subsequent appearance
of James Smith would have crushed
her to the earth. But Mr. Gray had first to present
his side of the case. His one important
witness was James Smith.

Mrs. John Smith was conversing with Mr.
Hopp when Mr. James Smith was called. She
looked up with an air of composure, and beheld
issue from the witness-room the man whose visit
to Mr. Gray has been described. It was observed
that she slightly changed color, but her presence
of mind did not desert her. She followed
him with her eye, as he mounted the witness-stand,
with no other expression than surprise
and curiosity on her face.

“Who is this witness?” asked Mr. Hopp, in a
whisper.

“I don't know him—never saw him before.”

Mr. James Smith was sworn. He gave his name,
age, occupation; was the brother of John Smith, of
Smith's Pocket; was uncle of Melissa Smith; knew
when his brother was married; met him occasionally
after his marriage, and after the birth of his daughter;
knew when his brother's wife deserted him; had often
met his brother's wife since her desertion of his
brother, and would know her anywhere he should
see her.

“Do you see the woman your brother married in
court?” asked Mr. Gray.

“I do not.”

“Look well at the ladies present. Is there one that
in any marked manner resembles her?”

The witness looked at the three or four ladies who
sat near Mrs. Smith and at Mrs. Smith. Mrs. Smith
bore his regard calmly.

“None of these ladies look like my brother's wife
more'n one woman always looks like another.”

“Are you personally acquainted with the defendant?”

“I am—or was.”

“Do you recognize the defendant in one of the
ladies present?”

The witness pointed to Mrs. Smith.

“When did you form the acquaintance of the plaintiff?”

“About fifteen years ago.”

“Were you intimately acquainted?”

“Pretty intimately—for a time.”

“Did you ever sustain any other relation to her
than that of ordinary acquaintance or friend?”

“Yes?”

“What other relation?”

“She was, for several months, my wife.”

Mrs. Smith smiled. Mr. Hopp, who had been growing
apprehensive, took new courage from her smile.

The witness was given to the other side for cross-examination.
Mr. Hopp was quite unprepared for
such testimony, but Mrs. Smith prompted him.

“You say,' said Mr. Hopp, “that you would know
Mrs. John Smith, if you should see her? How long
since you have seen her?”

The witness hesitated.

The question was repeated.

“I saw her between two and three years ago.”

“Where was she at that time?”

“In San Francisco.”

“Do you know if she still resides in San Francisco?”

“I believe she does.”

“Do you not know that she does?”

“No; I don't know she does.”

“When did you last hear of her or know of her living
in this city?”

“I know of her living in this city two years or more
ago”

“Are you sure that you have not seen her within
two years?”

“Perhaps I have.”

“When did you last see her?”

“Well,” said the witness, “if you must know, I saw
her four days ago.”

“You saw her four days ago! Why did you not say
so at first?”

“Because I only saw her for a few minutes.”

“Still you saw her and conversed with her?”

“Yes.”

Mr. Gray understood by the drift of these questions
that Mr. James Smith knew there was a reason why
Mrs. John Smith should not be produced in court, and
that Mrs. James Smith hoped to break the force of
Mr. James Smith's testimony by involving him in
petty contradictions. Mr. Hopp, having gained a
temporary advantage, proceeded with his cross-examination.

“Where does Mrs. John Smith reside?”

“I don't know.”

“Where was she when you saw her, four days
ago?”

“In a saloon on —alley.”

“Where is —alley —between what streets?”

“Between Pacific and Broadway.”

“What is the name of the saloon?”

“I believe they call it `The Sailors' Home.”'

An officer was immediately dispatched to The Sailor's
Home in search of Mrs. John Smith.

In fifteen minutes the officer returned. The Sailors'
Home was closed, and no woman bearing that name
was known in that vicinity.

Mr. Gray contended that the presence of Mrs. John
Smith was not essential, Mr. James Smith's testimony,
unless successfully impeached, was conclusive.
He had other witnesses, by which he would establish

123

the fact of the witness's identity. There witnesses
were called. Two citizens of reputs testified that they
had known James Smith for fifteen years, and that, so
far as they knew, he had always borne that name.
One of them (Drake), a saloon-keeper, testified that he
had known both John Smith and James Smith, and
that he knew them by common report to be brothers.

Much corroborative testimony was introduced, with
which we need not weary the reader. The case for the
plaintiff seemed impregnable.

In the face of this evidence Mrs. Smith testified that
she had married John Smith, that she was the mother
of Melissa Smith, that she had never been divorced
from John Smith, and that she had never seen the
man who called himself James Smith until she saw
him in court.

The nerve and audacity of the woman were grand.
She imposed upon her lawyer, upon the court, and
upon the spectators. If the case had been submitted,
it is probable that, in the doubt which to believe, the
jury would have given a verdict for the defense.

Mr. Gray rose for the summing up with the feeling
that the sympathies of the audience were against him,
Mliss was not present, and Mrs. Smith was Mrs.
Smith was in favor in high circles. It was not probable
that a woman in her position would swear to a lie.

He began his argument. He depicted the neglected
childhood of Mliss, and reminded the jury that the
woman who claimed to be her mother was living in
luxury at the time, in intimate relations with a man
not the father of Mliss. She had discovered the relationship
only when Mliss was discovered to be an heiress.
She had since conspired to ruin the child that
she might possess herself of the child's share in the
estate. All this was in proof. He only wished the
jury to bear the facts in mind.

He then reviewed the testimony of James Smith.
His identity was established beyond possible doubt.
The defense had not succeeded in their effort to impeach
his testimony. His credibility was unshaken.
The jury had no choice but to accept his evidence. He
testified that he had married the woman claiming to
be his brother's widow about the time his brother had
married. It was a question of facts. By all the rules
of evidence Mr. James Smith was entitled to belief,
The defendant occupied the unfortunate position of a
woman who, according to her own story, for twelve
years forgot husband and child—to return to the latter
when, by an unexpected chance, it became possessed
of a fortune.

The speech was compact, solid and eloquent. As an
argument it was conclusive—as an appeal it was
powerful. It produced a deep impression on the
spectators, and the jury followed him with rapt attention
to the end.

Mr. Hopp rose with the disadvantage of having to
review evidence he had not anticipated. Mrs. Smith
had solemnly and steadfastly assured him that there
was no such person as James Smith, yet he found such
a man on the witness-stand. He had to strike out a
new line of defense, attack what he had not known to
exist, meet new issues which he had not time to consider—his
confidence in his client's truthfulness, even
with himself, was shaken.

It was remarked by lawyers that Mr. Gray had never
made so strong an argument or Mr. Hopp so weak a
one.

The case was given to the jury, and, after an hour's
deliberation, they returned with a verdict for the
plaintiff. Mliss was legally free from the woman who
had claimed to be her mother, and, if living, undisputed
heir to her father's estate.