Show 89 CAUSES iI i I I I CLASH Geddes Refuses to I Admit Authorship of i Missive Ir By GORDON H. H PLACE oGDEN June 29 lf If If the tents of letter No 89 69 are as as the battle over ir if admission as evidence in incase ine e case of Albert Geddes st D. D C. C Eccles adminis- adminis 2 oi of the estate of the late arid lid vid Eccles would indicate it vid Eccles would indi- indi it would appear that outcome of the suit is isi i upon this letter Jetter Proposed ext exIt ex- ex felt t It No Xo 9 was the central point lent ut at which the attorneys s for tho thoe es e Interests and those for Mrs herself fought for more than bour hour this morning his hi letter Is deemed by the tho deas dei de- de i as one of or tho the bulwarks of ot their Every effort to Induce Mrs des to admit authorship was waa conI coned con- con I ed stubbornly and at the tho noon noona a the she left them baffled This pier tr er was WIlS ordered Impounded and andI pi I far Its contents aro are secret 0 Roy R. R Eccles declined to reth rethe re- re 1 th the contents of this letter by b adof adot adof ad- ad of ot counsel Ho intimates how- how z that this letter If It admitted by Geddes would put her In a avera t. t vera Admitted t diplomacy was used ding iding up to No 89 59 A series letters was first k several of ot which she Iden idea lt and a few tew of or which she dig die Within five ho minutes after court convened dt this morning Mrs lee Ies had admitted writing prod pro- pro d exhibit No 83 It is addressed t Bishop George V. V Bramel of ot ofIn ofIs otla In la City and bears date April 20 I W It In substance asks for tor an friy iy 11 date for tor her hearing before the hops hop's court In relation to 0 this er r Mrs Geddes testified that she ended a meeting of or the bishops bishop's sri to answer charges that had hada hadn a n made against her in relation the paternity of or Albert Geddes tending this trial were Bishop mel amel and his councilors Peter C. C Green Un and George H H. Carver and else elBe whose whoso identity she Id not recall After the hearing written decision was waa given her and ande e was asked to produce it IL She Shed ld Id d the original had been worn out that she had had a copy made Kas as as ordered to produce It H If It Ible tomorrow Tw Two y years ars later there was another In tho bishops bishop's court til It appears that by this time a num- num tr of ot church dignitaries reaching Ten to the tho first presidency prel enc had beo be- be wio o Interested In the ease case ase In one iy ay or another Ji C Mrs testified that Mrs Mra she nil Geddes was tho only on one to tom om m she sho had h ever cyer given authority Bee ate Bishop Bramel In relation to case eso In tho the bishops bishop's court Interested The iThe matter was taken up however Ith Ith Joseph oseph W. W Mc McMurrin one ono of or the theTen Ten n presidents of or seventies whom TI ra Geddes asked ed to take tako up the with the higher authorities of or Yo church David Eccles also was wasand 4 Sted eted anti and sho ho admitted that she he heI I 6 also alo have written to to Grant Grantin Grantt t in the matter malter She said If It she she- sher r 3 Britten to Grant Geddes It was wasA r Instruction of ot David Eccles A rd her to David t 1 reference Eccles Ia as sn n out ut- ut j Did tid Id you ou know John Hen Henry Smith i ell ea you take tako up the thc matter with ot t Personally It was taken up 5 him I 1 learn learned d about it IL David i r lu les Was Prominent with all alJ these thele rpt e In my behalf I Did V you u tak tako any interest In your our r. r tf MT u tI remained tit at home I wanted to It to another ward I 1 did not have haveit to it Ve e a a. recommend rt and could have havo I J 14 v ken en a another course nut cut I a asked ked for tor recommend exhibit No 34 84 If it o. o bearing ot Mn May 9 1900 a It letter lo to Bl hop Bramel Bi was tendered to Mrs Irs Geddes She did lid not recall that she had ever written such uch an epistle She declared the handwriting did not look at nt all like hers and was asked If It nn any part of ot It were In fn her handwriting I 1 should say y not she said Not any part of oC It Is In my handwriting I never saw It ft before Did you ou discuss till this letter with Bishop Bramel I l ma may havo have discussed the letter letter- tho the letter ho he sent with the tho decision of ot the bishops' bishops court I met the bishop at a R. party and ho he asked meDo me Do you feel teel any better bE toward me mo menow menow now I 1 feel teel all right toward you ou but I did not like that letter I 1 re referred referred ro- ro to the letter accompanying the decision That was sen several ml years after the trial possibly two or three years cars ago Proposed exhibit No 85 55 was then presented and Identified by Mrs Irs Geddes It bears date dato of oC Au August 2 1903 It Is IB addressed to Grant Geddes at Baker City Ore The Tho letter says that she received 26 25 26 on Jul July 4 an and adds I had Md such a lot of ot company from Ogden that Just came and staid that when they went I owed lowed It all She loses the letter by asking Aint I the greatest trouble you ever ver had Letter 85 was as withdrawn for a short time lime by Boyd Bod who asked It If Eccles visited her frequently In 1902 She Sho replied that he had early earh In the tho year ear along alon In the spring when the tho bo boy was about 3 years old and while white she sho lived ll In Salt Lake L. City Who moved you ou to Plain City 7 David Eccles made the arrangements arran there to pack my furniture and send fiend it to Plain City She She- believed the arrangements were made mado with the tho late Henry Din Din- There were months and months that J that Ol nt know I was going to move or not I 1 talked often otten with David Eccles about moving back to Plain City but out it H was not determined definitely until Just before I moved A letter addressed to Grant Geddes under date of April 22 1902 was presented pro pre seated Hento l as ns proposed exhibit No SG SC Mrs Ge Geddes des said that to her best Judgment the letter Jetter was her writing but that she was wa not certain This letter was Impounded A series cones of or questions was asked her relating to her residence at 25 0 O street and 30 S street Salt Lake The 0 O street house was not very nice The Tho physical conditions were unsatisfactory tor tory there being barns and stables nearby an and she said Mid she had to walk through the stable yard filth to get set getto getto setto to tho the street 0 Proposed exhibit N No Ne 87 October 8 S 1903 a letter to Grant Geddes Ceddes was admitted b by Mrs Geddes In this letter letter letter let let- ter she Rhe wild said that she was going to move mo In the morning to SO 30 S street She said she had a a. call caU from tram the teachers and the they eald It was too bad she had to put up UI with such a house Her reply to them thorn according to the letter was It a It Is not good but beggars beggars beg beg- gars cannot bo be choosers Proposed exhibit No 88 addressed to Grant Geddes under date of ot February IE 16 1904 was Identified almost promptly b by Mrs G Geddes This lett letter r acknowledges acknowledges acknowledges edges a receipt of ot a letter from Maggie Maggie Mag Mag- gie her daughter which gives gl an nn account of or sickness In Grant Geddes' Geddes household at Baker City Ore She expressed sorrow I think Ill I'll have hn to come como out and take tako care of oC tho the whole bunch of or you Albert will be bej 6 5 j next May and says to tell teU Uncle Grant that he Is coming coining to Baker soon and work In the lumber He is isa isa isa a big boy ho bo now and takes tak s a No Xo S 8 shoe hoc Your loving sister fOister M. M F F. Geddes Becomes Angry It was at this point that exhibit No 89 59 which Is d deemed emed of such Importance Im Im- Im- Im was waB produced This letter letterIs Is 15 addressed to Grant Ged Goddes Ceddes es and bears date of ot August 24 4 1902 Mrs Geddes was waR apparently moved when she examined this letter An unusual degree of or caution and deliberation i marked every phase of the examina examina- tion Sho was Interrogated sharply as ns to her deliberate refusal to Identify signatures without having hll read the entire contents of or letters submitted to her She displayed d a sign of or anger and removing her gloves loves used them to polish her glasses vigorously With heightening color she said Mid I would commit myself If it It cut my head off oct If it I knew knet She Sho did not know whether she had written It or not and would not admit It for the record l. l 0 Mrs Irs Geddes dont don't you ou know whether or not that Is your our signature signature signa signa- ture No sir 7 What Is your our Judgment I 1 dont don't know whether I 1 wrote It or not Your Judgment Is Ignorance unless un- un less lesa you ou are fully tully advised ad as to the contents Sho She repeated her answer that sh she shedid shedid did lid not know whether she had written written written writ writ- ten It or not but Do Boyd d had tho the an answer answer answer an- an stricken from the tho record Marioneaux tiled filed a a. vigorous protest against Boyds Boyd's manner and asked If It the witness must sit Bit dumb under such statements Boyd replied that his statement was a question The ThA witness he said has shown herself amply able to take lAke care of ot herself at nt any and all times Umes In this case without assistance from coun- coun sel eel Her manner shows her Continued on page 2 24 LETTER 89 Continued Cont from page pase 1 and uncertainty and ap apparent ap- ap parent lack Jack of frankness at times Attorney De Dc Vine Tine approached Boyd who was standing before the witness The They moved away asay from the witness witness' wit wit- ne ness ness' s' s hearing and held a L conference of or several severn I minutes' minutes duration Boyd Bod resumed his questioning on letter Jetter No J 90 00 V. V Is It f your our jud Judgment 7 he a that that the iho signature Mangle Maggie ln le l J Is written writ writ- ten b by you ouI ou I 1 do not know whether It is mine or cr r not This answer was stricken out ut and anda r repeated five times Have you OU a n Judgment juds Boyd asked You ought to know by hy this time she snapped as her fist clenched and anel her burned eyes angrily ril There v was as laughter throughout ut the courtroom court- court room loom and a ripple of f applause which the bailiff checked with pounding Jav gavel 1 Have you vou an opinion as to who wrote the signature Maggie I I ha have vc Is It ll your our opinion that OU it you wrote write It is m my opinion that I 1 M did not it The Tho letter was vas handed to her and andr she r Did was waR Mas d to read all of oC It YOU write nr proposed P exhibit No 90 Not that I know of ot Was Vas It by someone ne else lse for tor or you Oll 7 It might have e been written b hv by J someone me else-but else not tot for me The letter Jetter WR wa was impounded Examination was resumed on letter No iNo 89 at this point Mrs aIrs Gedd Gedde Ceddes dec declined ined to express S an opinion as to whether hether or not she had written that that I Jetter et t orDo or Do you OU recognize the I handwriting as our own O I have formed no opinion Boyd gave n e her the letter for the third time to read in whole Mrs Geddes Geldes 2 fused refused re- re to real read It saying that she knew what was In it It I Mrs Geddes will you please tako 0 this letter I during the noon recess reces anil I I In the presence of the court clerk and the court steno stenographer or either I of or them thorn read it very carefully and nod then this afternoon tell us your ju Judgment as La to whether or not you rou wrote It 7 I will not That would do no good I 1 have read it twice The noon recess was ordered at this I time and further examination of ot Mrs tr I II Geddes will he le taken up at 2 I |