THE 1INDLE ffl. Testimony for the State Concluded. Opening Argument of MrvFox for the Defense. A Terrible Arraignment of j r . Adulterers. The Inalienable Eight to Kill the Seducer. " Mrs. Prindle, the Prisoner's Wife, Tells Her Story. hand of I an outraged husband and who shall fay thtt this man wh not the- instrataent of the great lawgiver whe raid "A hod ahalt not commit adultery." I '- THE SEED OIT THE ADCLTKBKB. The issue you have to decide i whether the act" readered the author amenable to the laws oflthe land, and whether it was a crime unaef our statutes. It remains with you, gentlemen, to fix the price of the mar riage. Yew hare to say for the second time in thiaj county what estimate is placed on me sanctitr ot marriage, xouimay feel a pity for the death of ihis man, but while vou ritv the dead, vou should extend commiseration to the living. This may be your gam and mine. Who knows but what your own I wives and daughters might have been marked out by the deceased to gratify his brutal and insatiable appetite. Ihis defendant s wife has been made wanton, and the seed of the adulterer planted in his family by his most trusted friend. He (meted out swift justice to the violator of his bed, to the murderer ot his unborn children and the author of his wife's years of prostitution. her misery and her maniacal frenzy. The wreck of thi his horrible affliction, was he darkness of eternal death area his brain and dtied up of his life. And this woe mion him not' by his enemy, his friend. Yet not or deceased was no man's .s the enemy of all mankind; maa a mind 1 greater than His misery toe fountain was broutrh but by big : friend; friend. He w but he was trusted, and held to the world Who in all human affairs oeeuDiea a lace ot such trust Not one ! Not the soul, for U Her Relations With Dr. Fully Detailed. Back Arguments and Court Baling on Her Testimony. As the trial of IT. Fr "Frindle for the murder of Dr. Nathan li'Buck progresses, public interest in it deepens, and Judge liibson s Court room is hardly large enough to accommodate the ' spectators and wit nesses. The interest in the case almost rivals that manifested in the trial of Schroedsr, who -killed Dr. Lefevre a few years ago, the motives of the two crimes being similar.. Since tba taking of testi mony commenced there have been a num ber of ladies in the Cuurt-rjom, and this morning among those in attendance was the sister-in-law of the murdered physician. She occupied a seat near counsel for the prosecution, and was attired in deep mourning. Duiiog the opening remarks of Mr. Fox, of ' counsel for the defendant,' the lady at several references made, to the dead physician was deeply affected. A GHASTLY INCIDENT. The most ghastly incident of the trial occurred yesterday afternoon, when Detective Shorey untied a bundle of blood stained and bullet-riddled clothing, and identified the various articles of clothing those taken from the body of Dr. Buck after he was killed. The shirt, undershirt ni vest were dead-crimson ana were coated with coagulated blood. The exhibi tion of these articles caused a shudder to " run through the spectators, but all seemed anxious to see them, men in the auditorium standing up on - the benches and craning their necks to g$ a look at the gory garments. The defendant also seemed interested in the - bloody clothing, and when the hat worn by Dr. Buck on the fatal night was placed upon the table near him, he reached for it and closely examined a bullet hole that had been made in it on the night of the hojaicide. The prosecution made quick work o their side of the case, and iiad all their direct testimony in by 10 o'clock this innrntnff. Th Tiriannpr oma f rv Ti tnlrtrrt matters cooly, and this morning appeared 'in Court with slippered feet, having substituted them for a pair of heavy boots he was accustomed to wear. Fourth Day. Long before the Court opened this morning the corridors were crowded with witnesses and the large number of persons who are interested in the ctse of The Peo-p't vs. Prindle. The two principal topics pi conversation were me examination ol Mrs. Peters, the sister-in-law of Dr. Buck, ad the unpleasant episode of introducing the clothes of the deceased asevidence. Mrs. Peters was naturally very much affected as she underwent the ordeal of de scribing minutely each detail connected with the tragic affair, and, it was generally remarked that counse for the -defense, C-N. Fox, exhibited excellent Rood taste and jnanly forbearance in his quiet cross-examination of the unhappy lady. THE HAT IDENTIFIED. Precisely at tea o'clock his Honor took his seat. After the jury had answered to their names, Herbert T. Buck, a 15 year old boy, and an adopted, son of Dr. Buck, took the stand. He was a?ked to describe the hat whkh his- father wore, which he did very accurately, and on being shown to him he recognized it at once. There was a bullet hole in the back. He stated further that the name of the maker was Meusedortfer. - - - - : ,1 . r r il i size hat. I know it because I have asked him so many times. I asked him became I wanted to know. My father brought it back from Santa Cms list February, and I have seen it constantly. Mr. Chicker-ing (if counsel for the people) spoke to me about it and I described it to him this morning. The conversation took place at the Webster street, depot. I never described it" before. r He did cot orrect me in any way; merely sliced me to describe it. My father always wore a soft hat until just before he had this. He had a stiff bat with a narrow btim with Brink's name in it. The name of Meusdorffer in this hat is on the rim on the4nside. Counsel continued to cross-examine the boy on the piece of paper containing the size of th hat.) I, wis 15 years old on the 13th of May, and am the adopted son of Dr. Buck; I had lived with him three yearsj I had nothing to do with his office. The District-Attorney desiring oorrob- .s . .: im PI1WIO muuiuiij icgniuiutt ASK . juuv&i hat, recalled the sister-in-law of- the deceased, but the lvdy was not within tie precincts of Oourt-room No. 2. - This cloned the case for the prosecution, aad with permission from the defense to introduce her- testimony at any time, the prosecution rested. i THE DKFKXSK. Precisely at 10:23 Mr. Fox commenced: Ha said in substance that we had . now reached the point in the proceedings when the actual trial commenced, and he approached it with a full sense of the awful responsibility resting upon himself and all involved, whether for the prosecution or defense. If for the former, counsel felt his duty as a minister of the law to be executed without asperity, without neglect and with a fall representation of all facts so that juktioe soMht be done. If for the defense,: counsel felt that the life and liberty of a fellow-being was 'in his hands. If h be on th bench then the exercise of perfect Impartiality became the great responsibility. ' .As to ths jury, they were Lound, without regard to consequences, te render a verdict of truth, And that was not always easy to get at out of the mass of evidence. Only a few, weeks since, on a bright Sabbath evening, the crack of the pistol was heard, and ne .of our citizen waa sent without warning, and ai far as the evidence yet h rws, sent uushriven to bis Maker. His was a pleasant form and fair t look npos), but, aa we shall attempt to show yon. it was the form of a confirmed d habitual adulterer. Had be obeyed i he law of the God from whose boose be was returning, be would have sti 1 been among the living, bat be did not. and so b met his death at the committed it power. A was a that - Iiia then br: of Jaw which underlie the The charge It law was Fox as worthy, to himself out be trusted, as the family1 physician? even he who administers to e has no such opportunities as the phTsicain to pick out the ewe lambs of the nock, or be entrusted with the care of their naked bodies. When euSh put betrays his 1 trust, who cai.me ? a measure r to r- his Duniah nt When such I a one betravs bin trust the victim may well crv with Caesar. j Kt Tu BruteJ or denounce with Ham him who had I robbed him of his power of tuougnt. l hare never has bsen a law. human or divjup, to punish an act that is one whose reason has lost romam maxim. Inaxim of the old Koman a madman's madness uwn punishment. Mr. fly stated the principles case at the bar. against defendant is that on the 24th dsy of May, 1885, in this city and county, defendant did kill- with malice aforethought, jkathanjTj. Buck. The charge f the criminal act is in the conjunctiva.' Every murder involves the killing of a human I beintr. but every killing does not j constitute a murder. In order Bo be murder, kill ing mut be jdone with malice and forethought. There can be no "murder of anv degree without! an unlawful killing with malice aforethought. There must be be hind the weaiJon thit inflicts the fatal injury a mind with malice in it. The statute also provides I that certain persons are incapable of coinmittuiK crime. There are lunatics and persons of unsound mind, and also those whoj commit crime under mistake or ignorance. Mr. r ox then Quoted the statute in re- gard to what (constitute crime and who, are under the statute liable to punishment. Mr. ' Fox continued at length and explained what must be proved to convict a man Df crime. The gentle-' man wanted to know if a man could be charged with a cold blooded, wii-bpd abandoned and malignant heart, who upon the heel of leaning that the" body of his wife had for feut or five years been the in strument for the gratification of the lust of man who occaried in his familv a. trust of such a confidential nature, t bat his position gave him! undue advai ge. Can such a mad in killing the betrayer of his family ,be actin? under the impulse of la wicked and malignant heart? The coridil ion ef his mind at that time must be taken into consideration. THEIMIND OF MAN. Ths mind of man, Mr. Fox continued, is a most interesting study, and has been since the existence of the race. It has been pursued with suih results that I am justified in saying I that the mind of. man is composed of at least four distinct parts: perCeptive.intellect, emotion, wilL Mr. ox then! went on and explained the functions of the various' parts named. The emotional faculty ,.Mr. Fox explained, was peculiarly tie seat of animal instinct in man, and aad control of him. (Jut of it impulse springs. It is from this fact tfcat we find ; woman more impulsive than man. They lose the reason in? faculty less than men do. This is illustrated byjthe fact that women will come to a conclusion quicker than men; they move, as a general rule, upon the im pulse oi toe moment. Will power. Mr. Fox maintained, was the object slave f emotion, and executed the mandate of emotion without question. A LAW OF NATURE. There is also another principle inVoLved in nhisxase, aside from the fact that the killing was justifiable, that is, that the killing was done in obedience to a law, of nature. In looking to the books for remedies for our wri ngs we commit errors. What does the constitution mean when it refers to our inalienable right? It means rights which governments cannot take away from in art. Rights over1 which States will not legislate, because to do so would ba to legislate against inalienable rights. But it does not stop there, it goes further. Section 1st of the Constitution itself and article says: All meu, are by nature free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, amonz which are these of defending life and liberty and pursuing happiness. I These are some, not at of the inalienable! rights, but among them is that of defending and protecting life and liberty. ; Is the wan in the full enjoyment of his inalienable right of defending life and liberty when lie limits that tiht to de. fending the miserable clay which forms part of his anatony, or does that right extend to defendingjthe life and liberty of her of whom God has(said is' bone 'of his bone and flesh of hi9 flesh, or the liberty and light of his children whom he has begotten? When be finds that his bed has been polluted, ana that the crime is going on from day to ct&y, and time to time, shall he be forbidden to protect her who lies on it when te law allows him to protect as his personal property the very bed which has been so polluted. He is allowed to protect it even to the taking of human lif?. Hut the prosecution will say that such pro! tction is only permissible when the party s found in the overt act. " THE RIi HGT TO KILL. Adultery begins n t with -the act of ceition. It begins when, he serpent enters the garden and seeks! to enchain her with his lustful eyes. Solomon tella us.tht when a man looketh upon a woman and lusteth after ber he commits adultery even before coition takes plate. When it has once taken place then itjremaiaS adultery. When the woman has fence yielded to the man she is henceforth his, body and soul, and the . queatien 6i coition henceforth only depends I upon ' bis desire and his opportunity, and it continues until death, or until the man abandons her for some more attractive victim. And such a woman lives under his control, and the innocent husband (of the debauched wife is made the victim of the crime. Therefore, we say that-this defendant is justified by the Constitution,) by the Constitution jof the State, and by the law. of nature in committing this act. He is further justified in using all force to prevent the commission of a felony on the (person of his wife, if he has reasonable grotnds of apprehension. : Counsel for the prosecution have dwelt at some length upon the mode and manner of this killing. It makes no difference whether the deceased was killed by one or fifty shots, or by a dagger stroke. It makes t,o difference. . We have already admitted the killing, but the real point is the principle which underlies the case. This is not whether the defendant killed Dr. Buck, but whether he murdered lOr. Back, and whethef he is amenable t the law tor his action. And so we must go into the question! of the circumstances under which be jacted and the motives which be had. . Yen must not confound homicide with rounder. j what mix WILL PBOVm, We expect to prove that the defendant is a married man, fend has been such for many years; that's n to him was born two children, both of whom are now. dead; that after the death of it be children the mother was in need of a physician, end the regular physidan being away, Dr. N. L. Bock was called in as medical attendant. lis treated the woman successfully. at an events the woman got well. Dr. Buck was a man of goodly manner and fine appearance. A few months later some ailment of Mrs. Frindle necessitated the attendance of Dr. Buck sgsin. Again the Doctor cured her, and a few days after tne woman s recovery, the Doctor called in I a friendly way. Then followed a number of other similar calls by the physician. Then followed a course of seduction, including kissing and loving words by the Doctor to the woman. After a time matters went to further extremes and the woman found herself pregnant, -to hide this, abortion was resorted to by the woman and she injured herself. Becominsr alarmed she called in a physician from Alameda, and confessing to him what she hod done, asked the phy sician to complete the work which bad been attempted. The physician insisted on the calling in of Dr. Buck, and he was made cognizant of the matter. He had no scruples . and completed the work of Droducincr an abortion and re lieving the woman of a child begotten by htr husband, the defendant here. Follow ing up this act, the physician, by means of the power he had obtained over the woman, made her submit to his , caresses, and a criminal intimacy was inaugurated and kept up. . . CROWDING THE HCSBA.VD OCT OF HI3 PLACE And while accomplishing her ruin he took the husband's place in the marriage bed. becoming not the husband but crowding him out from his place in his home. The ice once broken, from' that time down to na into this year Of our Jjord. this doctor. this trusted physician and friend, keeping? himself always in tbeonfidence. nominally S . . t .- T , au.uu mil iii m jjruieseionai capacity, cajitnx ostensi- t thought woman, from week to week and day to day, although she was in a weak physici.tl con dition, made her minister to bis wants as ften as his desires nromoted. Not un- frequently he found it necessary to repeat the first crime, which he had committed and to produce on her abortions, which were the results of his own acts. This debauchery and crime against this defendant was kept up from month to month, and year to year, down to this present year, and he again committed this crime ot abortion on this worn in before worms had touched the body of his own dead wife. At last the woman's life was in danger from the wounds in ber body, inflicted by the deceased upon procuring abortion, and when in danger of death she began to confess to her hu.baiid what bad happened. She commenced a part of her confession on the 5:h of April last, on Faster Sunday. She barely intimated the heinousness of the crimes committed. She said nothing about the crime of abortion. She only confessed that the Doctor had been intimate with her, and that she had violated her marriage-vow. Had a bolt from heaven struck the defendant he could not have been more surprised. He was loth to believe it at first. : He hesitated to believe that the man he had trusted had violated his oatb. The defendant went away, filled with apprehension and anxiety. Some days, elapsed before the subject was renewed between husband and wife, and then another chapter of the outrages committed by the Doctor was told. Again the defendant' was loth to believe the crime of " his physician and set about to verify-them. Then the wife unfolded another chapter of her wrongs, and so the history- was repeated for seven lorn weeks, dav after day. The defendant sought for proofs. All he learned, all the circumstances detailed by the wife verified her statement. And day after day, becoming more convinced of its truth, and considering its enormity, he became so affected by it, until at last, i and on the 24th day of May last, cate the last of these communications. And then. aroused past all endurance, he hunted up the ruiner of his family arid killed him. j lhese are the facts as we will show them. gentlemen,' and' upon which we will ask you to say that this defendant is not guilty of murder. ' Mr. Fox concluded his argument at noon, and a recess was taken until 1:30 o'clock. wife confessed adnltery, "bat that," said counsel, "did not bring; him back to the world." Copious extracts were? read from thia celebrated case, showing tnae tne on-lection to evidence of this had been sus tained by the Supreme Court. Counsel desired to read another extract from the celebrated Macfarlane oss In New York, His Honor! stated that he was perfectly familiar with it. Adultery was no justification to homicide, and the Court did uot Deiieve that any section of the Con stitution had ever been used I to de fend killing for adultery. Hie Honor euppoeed that the defense were acting under Section 26 of the Penal Code which pro vided for irresponsibility, unsettled reason and derangement of mind such; as might be caused by such a revelation as had been made by defendant's wifej This his Honor thought was the issue. If the jury thought tne detendant was insane at the time then he should go free. As to whether adultery was committed tt made no difference. If defendant committed this act with malice and aforethonght he was responsible. His Honor overruled the objection however for the present. j ; i THE WIFE'S TESTIMONY. : I Examination continued Mrs. Prindle said: I saw Dr. Buck just a week after I had recovered. He called in at the next house to see a Mrs. Checkering. j Counsel for . defense "asked: f'What transpired then?" j ' I The prosecution objected and further argument ensued. ' I ! Before the Court finally ruled pn the question Fox wanted to be beard. He did not think that in an issue involving life or death that the defendant should be pre vented from proving the condition of his mind and all the f nets that led to it He that it was .iadmissable for mm to prove by the wife the confessions she made of her adulterous intimacy with Dr. Buck toat fcbemade these confessions and that jthey so excited the emotions of the prisoner that his acted rsason was overthrown, and that he while in this condition. I The, Court thought that an intimate friend of defendant might give an opinion as to the mental sanity jjf another and give his reasons. It was therefore proper to allow any communication which the witness had made to defendant to be imade knowo, simply for the purpose of going to show the probability or truth of anything that might have been said to the defendant which might- have unsettled his mind. With this idea the . Court thought . the wife's testimony admissableJ Mr. C. N. Fox thanked the Court, but bplieved the defense had a right to go further and bring in other testimony to Show that other facts were brought to defendant's knowledge, which urged him toj this deed. In 800 years the Hurtado case was the only instance of such i ruling as had prevailed at that trial. He would not concede that this testimony of the wife was as far as he intended to go. i Mr. Fox insisted that they had a tight to show that the woman made confessions of her intimacy with Dr. Buck; to show that be acted upon those confessions,! and was, at the time, not in his right mind. The Hurtado case in Sacramento, I referred to by Mr. Moore, was discussed by Mr. Fox, who reviewed the opinion of the (Jourt at length. Afternoon Session. - On the reconvening of Court after recess, various mysterious movements on the part of Messrs. Fox and Whitmore, counsel forjhe defense, led to the expectation of something startling, which came to light a few moments later, wlhen the defendant took a seat at the far end of the room and out of sight of the witness box. Then Mr.- Fox left the room for a few moments and returned through the end door of the Court-room near the jury box supporting a small woman with a pale complexion and careworn face. Mr. Fox assisted her to the witness stand and announced Mrs. Martha Prindle. The lady was sworn, and stated that she is tin wife of the defendant. ? . THE PRISONER'S WIKS. All eyes were turned upon the woman, who is about 35 years of age and evidently an invalid. The lady has, as stated, a very pale complexion, with a deeply wrinkled and care-worn face; the lines about the mouth being hard-drawn, telling of suffering of some kind. She his a rather pointed nose and dark-brown eyes, shaded by heavy lashes. She was neatly but richly attired in a black silk skirt and a silk velvet basque of the same color. The dress skirt was set of with a series of box pleats, while the deep black of the basque was ornamented with bright cut steel buttons that glistened brightly in the stray beams of sunshine that canon through the open windows of the Court-room, She wore a gold tassel hung by a chain from one of the button-boles of the bas-que, the collar being trimmed with niching. The lady's dark brown hair was neatly done up in a pleated bunch at the back, while a tall white straw hat, trimmed with Magenta red velvet and a flowing plume of the same color, made quite an attractive appearance. 1 he lady was then sworn, but s it was impossible for the jury to hear what she said from the indistinct tone in which she spoke, she was seated immediately in front of the jury box. " THE WIPE ON THE STAND. Mrs. Maria Prinile stated in a weak voice that she knew Henry F. Prindle; she was his wife, and married to him about eighteen years ago. Continuing, she said: We married in Massachusetts; we came te California sixteen years ago; we have resided since then here; I have had three living', children; I have i none living; they all died within thirteen days of each other; they - were aged respectively six years, three years, and one month; we were living when the two eldest children died at Melrose; I knew Dr. N. Ij. Buck: I first became acquainted with him about six and a half years ago, under the circumstances of bis being sent to me by Dr. Pinkerton; I sent for Dr. Pinker-ton, bat Dr. Buck came; he attenJed on me; I was six weeks sick; the doctor visited me during that sickness twice a day for two weeks, and afterwards once a day- ".After you recovered from that sickness," said counsel for defense, "how long was it before you saw Dr. Buck?" j LEGAL DISCUSSION. The Prosecuting Attorney objected to this question, and claimed that now was the time to interpose an objection, to the line of defense, which was that the pursuit of life and liberty entitled any man whose wife was seduced to take the seducer's life. He reviewed sgain the circumstances of the shooting, and said that there was no law of God nor of Nature nor of ti e State which entitled thia man ?o take the life of Dr. Buck. Adultery i no justification for crime. The law did not allow any man to be judge, jory and executioner. The only theory which could be broached was, the condition of defendant's mind Thst condition would have been the same if the communication of his wife had been true or false. There is no relevancy in such questions as these to which we object. A iran lays in wait for another and shoots him dowa like a dog in te moat cowardly way. Then he pleads iosaoity, and says the man he had assassinated had dishonored his bed. The cowardly assaesin is perhaps acquitted by a jury and vaunts his having avenged his honor. But the dead man cannot defend himself, and the assassin brings his wife Into Court to prove that she is an adulteress and clears his skirts. ; THE CODBT'S SCUNO. : . Coansel closed with an eloquent argument that adultery never justified assassination, and cited several easts in support of bis toiition. The first case was that of the People vs. Hurtado, where defendant's WHAT CAN BE SHOWN. ri-. fm .. ., . . . ne uourt said that it would be proper to show the relations of the woman to Br Buck, and the fact of these relation com ing to the knowledge of the defendant, j . Mr. Fox stated that he alsk expected! to proye that numerous abortions had been committed upon the wife of the defendant by testimony aliuivlt. l The Court also thought- that it would be proper for the defence! to show that! he knew of thai abortions having been obtained,, and that kuowledge of the fact influenced "the defendant's mind. The question at issue the killing is admitted is tht the defendant was insane at the time of the killing. J ud e Gibson thought that anything going to show the condition of " the mind of the man at the time of the killing was admistable.. Also any investigation msde by the defendant to ascertain the truth or falsity of the statements made to the defendant, if she made any investigation, was admissable also, as going to show the condition of bis mind. . i The question as to what 'transpired at the visit of Dr. Buck after the recovery jof the witness was read by reporter Shay, and the Court was asked to rule upon it Some farther discussion ensued between counsel, and the Court stated that tie would allow the question to: be answered, but if it was not responsive under the rulie, as he stated, it would be stricken out. j The question was again put, and wit-esss answered that Dr. Buck came in and visited her; he said he had been to see Mrs. Chickering, aud came to see her afterward, and then asked how she was getting on; she said "comfertably," and meu 10 r. buck pressed her to himself, and kissed her The prosecution objected and the Court ordered the last portion of ;the. sentence stricken out, i j y The next time "Mrs. Prindle said." that I saw Dr. Buck was when he called at my house and asked the way to San Leandro. "When did you next see him?" asked Mr, Fox., , j The prosecution objected to this and anjr other questions in the same vein. j A lengthy discussion all on the same point followed and at one time the ascerbir ties of the opposing ceuosel seemed to be on. the verge of boiling over. MORE DISCUSSION. , Mr. A. A. Moore, in answer to the re- nark of Mr. Fox, in which the lattei alluded to the prosecution as the "persecution," indignantly repelled the charge, and said that counsel had no right to say, in the presence of the Court and juryj that this prosecution, instituted , by the State, was a persecution. These questions now being put were so) skillfully framed that the answers were' made exactly in opposition to the rulings of the Court, and were net relative or pertinent. The answer to the first question came in directly contrary to the rulings, and was obliged to be stricken ont The Court iadicated that counsel must ask questions in consonance with the rulings of the Court. The question was allowed to be put, ; Mr. Fox stating that he would endeavor ! to follow the course of the Court. Wit-1 ness continued: ,1 "I next 8 aw the doctor about a month : after the time be went to San Leandro; 1 1 was -tatken sick and sent for him; there i was-scarlet fever around and he pronounced that I was taken with .it; my husband went for him; I was two weeks sick; the doctor came twice a day at first, and once a day afterward; after I got over that sickness it was three weeks before I saw him; he came in to see how I was getting along. Then I did not see him for two months, about when he told me to come to his office and ' get treatment from him during office hour. My husband knew of this, and told me to go to Dr. Buck's office. I went there regularly for four or five months, as near aa I can remember. ! ILL AT ALAMEDA. Dr. Reynolds, of Alameda, at a subsequent sickness of witness, called, and Dr. Buck was also called in by her husband. Dri Reynolds did not come, but Dr. Back did visit her. Dr. Buck and ber husband came to her house together. During that illness Dr. Buck visited her twice a day f or four weeks. The witness stated that her husband knew Dr. Buck was treating her and desired that Dr. Buck should. Mr. Fox What was the nature of yonr s;ckness at that time? What, if anything, did Dr. Buck du? , . . The question was objected to. Mr. Fox stated that he asked the question for the purpose of showing that at that time Dr. Back produced an abortion on the woman- ' - The objection was sustained by the Court. ' . , i -:. A RECESS. The Court suggested that aa the Courtroom waa very warm, it would be advisable to take a recess for ten ' minutes, end the jory filed oat for a breath of fresh air. . -,-'; ; - ' . : - Oe reassembling after recess the examination of Mrs. Prindle was resumed. During reees the witness and wife of ths defendant held a close conversation with Mrs. Fred. Prindle, a niece of the prisoner. The defendant's wife, in spite of the close atmosphere of the Coart-room,seemed to feel chilly, and ber niece placed a sealskin sacque over her shoulders. DB. BTX'KS VISITS. 1 Coansel for defease asked: ''How bag after the sickness at Alameda was it that yon next saw Dr. Back r j ! witness replied: "lie came to my house about a month after my sickness. I war , sick about three I months. He came of his own accord. I saw him again two. weeks afterward. He drove over to Alameda to see me. was not sick n r bad he been sent for. He came again in two weeics morel! 1 did not fend for bjm. He was called ifor to treat fine professionally six months after! the sickness in Alameda before i he was ! sent for. He s called i on me j during tnose six months a few 'times more than on those occasions specified. When I had moved to East Oakland and my husband went for him I was sick of meningitis; x was side about four weeics; be treated me profesaiottally durine! his Visits to Ala meda at times; it was between 2jj and 3 months after I recovered from meningitis that I saw-him again: my husband brought him ani was arcing me to co to the doctor's,' office ;for treatment;. I remained under : I his treatment for my itrnuhlea ; lane tin-m ho ceased tit treat me! after the men ingitis, when I askel my husband to get' another physician, and., he brought Tk:tor Buck) down i again; he continued to treat me until about two months! before i ke waa t killed. he continued: to treat, tne for lust the period I have! stated, from the time I had meningitis until two or three months before the shooting. I was under his treatment a'l the time. sometimes daily and sometimes weekly, j Sometimes I went to the i Office, i alwsys twice a weeK, sometimes three; sometimes l went to Thirteenth and Castro streets. and sometimes to his office on Broadway; a great many times 1 told my husband ic was impossiDie lur . me to go to nis omce; then fj my husband went lor hum. frequently he went with me to the office; I always went witn n nis -Knowledge; when i wanted another physician my husband said they Would only kill me with medicine. "Dri . Buck understood me. he always said. !;Dr. Buck and my husband ireqnentiy met at my home. Mr. Pox next asked! "For what was Dr. Biick treating yojf for during all r" t i The month witness Dr. this time: ' Counsel fr r people objected. His Honor thought the qaestion admssable. iounsd torn de'ense said the question was put to shew the confidence existing ueiweeu ins parties. 1 he objection was. overruled. ana mta ;f 1'rindue answered mat xjt. jduck wasr treating me for femal) troubles;' womb troubles'; continuing : i j "My husband knew what these " troubles j were ; they involved freqijjent. examinations of the womb. bevefal of these examinations were made in my husband's -. presence. but not alJ. They j! were imade Doth at my house and Ug. Buck's office. sometimes. a( the one and sometimes at the other. - i SHE DIDN T REMlHBER. did not remember what Buck ' c eased to j treat her for the tro-ubies, nor cotild she remem ber about tbej time. She was under Dr. Back's treatment through the months ot uecember and January last. She subsequently wasij treated bjj Dr. Wythe, who was sent- by her ; s husband, the latterstatinsr that Dr. Buck had told him to get Dr. Wythe. After Dr. Wythe the witness stated' j she was treated -by Dr. Pinkerton. " Tfyat was abosjt the first of May last, andpDr. Pinkerton has continued to treat beri j i : Mr. Fox "jjtate whether or not (luring any portion of j the time and. during which you were under the j 'treatment of Dr. Bock, there were any Improper relations between you, whether or not you ever had carnal connection, nd when and where it occurred. j Objected to by counsel fot the State. The objectitiu was followed by more discussion, durine which the question of the admissability of. this , sort of evidence was gime over again and argued by respective atiunsel, and the -Howiands case was again discussed. I ( Mr. Fox stataed that he wanted to follow up the question by proving that IMrs. Prindle told her husband of her connection with Dr. Bucty j i . Before-ruling on the question, the Court stated that ha wanted to! examine the record in the Hurtado case, and an ad journment was taken unltil to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. j L j j Yesterday' Proce'ediitirsi After The Tribi xe had yesterday, ths discussion onj of admitting inito evidence) worn by Dr. Back was continued. The District' Attorney contended that the clothing would show the tions of the defendant and it was not cumulative or evidence. It was the best kisd of evidlence possible. Whether it was pheasant or unpleasant to the I Court to j pnpack these clothes or not was not the question for his Honor to decd. If defendant would admit that bei had laid iu j wait foil Dr. Buck and shot ahri till he killed him and then put three ballets into his dead body, the Counsel for the people would igive way- ' Is ! I I Counsel for defense followed somewhat sarcastically and said that) the District Attorney wished bis client to acknowledge that he had committed murder. They admitted the shooting of. the deceased.; It was irrelevant. - What could ithis clothing prove anything half as strong as the testimony in evidence. The ; Court agreed and thought that if. at aiy time I the defense went back on theii admissions, then it might be ! necessary ; jto introduce the evidence. At some futune time, if it was so necessary, he would admit it. Still, the testimony' was admissable; the Court would allow it if the DissAit Attorney, insisted. Counsel for the people so insisted. and Officer Shorey proceeded! to untie lone of the bloodiest fore a Court. gone to press the: question tke clothing relative posi- jthe deceased. coroboratire THl HAT ibnndles ever funfolded; be- Was first produced.. The! officer had picked it up at the foot of tlija steps, 'but squid not positively: swear that it was Dr. Buck's. It was was like eneShe had been in the habit of wearing. Each articM in all its gory horror,, was undore and laid on a chair. j! : i i 1 Witness continued that he knew this to be Dr. Buck's clothing, as hebelped tot remove it from his body, and bad locked it up in the City Hall, where it had been ever since. I: ' ! ' t The defense dieclined cross-examination. District-Attorney Hall announced that his side of the case was nearly all in; that there was only one man who could identify the hat introduced as the one worn by Dr. Buck at the time of the homicide, but that the witness was net then present in Court. He therefose asked the Court to adjohrn until this mcrnin?:, when he 'would have the witness present.. The Court complied, and the case was adjourned until this morning at lO o'clock. . Men Wis Drag Carriages. ComhtU MopaiintA Trot, trot, trot, along the smooth. sunny, but bamboo shaded high road, X have a little leisure now to observe these astonishing ricksha. w coolies.! They wear the enormous traditional mushroom Chinese hat, suitable in case either of beating rain or fierce sun, under which are tacked their band-plaited pigtails for eren a coolie would feel himself disgraced were he minus a pigtail. They are bare-footed, bare-legeod, bare-armed, and wear just sufficient rags to save themselves from (the charge o( indelicacy. Their skins are sallow, their Mongolian faces are pinched their stature is small, their limbs seem attenuated and loosely rat together. And yet these demoniacs! oking wretches, to call whom "brethren" is iadeed: a heavy demand on our charity, throw themselves forward into fthe a hafts and draft their carriages with tueir passengers, who may be) ten or may be twenty stone, not at a walk of a shuffle or an amble, bat at a fcood round t-ot of about six miles an hour. They neither flag, pant nor perspire, bat keep np thia pace low two or three miles st a stretch.-. Would not tbe most renowned European athlete or pedestrian be bat a feeble coney in Comparison ? (Moreover, these coolies have to eootent .themselves at the end of j their journey with fire cents a sent is a fraction less than; a half-penny. They exatt if they receive ten cents, and. consider the donor an utter fool if he gives them fifteen cents. 1 : - r I isi tne io in and in in the be in the part is shall and final, bate; his with to Ton-quinj and He the the upon debate; on the ley, support in ten The combating exhausted, convoke the The from him was nothing friendship bad the track three-quarters by race, informing take Free negotiations of been day by Da-cat bis dramatist, trip of