Newspaper Page Text
2
ARCH GRAFTER
MUST SERVE 14
YEAR SENTENCE
Appellate Court Decides No Re
versible Error Was Com
mitted in Trial
Decision o\ Tribunal Based on
V
Broad Principles of Law
and Justice
pivc judgment without regard to tech
nical errors or defects or to exceptions
which do not affect the substantial
rights of the parties." In maintaining
that principle, the court reviews the
more Important of the innumerable
points which the 24 volumes of the
Ruef appeal contain, and sustains the \u25a0
ruling! of the trial Judge, Judge Wil
liam P. Lawlor, and the acttons of the
prosecuting officers — Assistant District
Attorney Francis J. Heney and Hiram
TV". Johnson, who took Hcney's place
after Heney had been shot down In the
courtroom in the progress of the trial .
by Morr!s Haas.
The action of Ruef and Ach in filing
en appeal of 12,000 pages and a brief
of 2.400 pages is censured by-the court.
Reviews Evidence
Before entering Into the law In the
case Justice Cooper reviews succinctly
the evidence against Ruef, and. with It
fums up with clearness the evidence
against the United Railroads, President
Calhoun and other officials of the'eom
pany being codefendants with Ruef In
the indictments, returned. Incisively
the opinion relates the connection be
tween Ruef and the United Railroads,
reviewing, as they appeared in the
testimony at the Rurf trial, the facts
that conected the boss of the munici
pality with the street railroad cor
poration. -. 4 .' "
"There ia evidence."' said the justice
In his opinion, "that 1200.000 was placed
at the United States mint in the city
and county of San Francisco by the
president of the United Railroads; that
Cole, the cashier of the mint, exchanged
the gold to the extent of $50,000 for
that amount of currency from the relief
fund, of which Cole was aso treasurer;
that all this sum was paid to the de
fendant (Ruef) In currency, and that
afterward $150,000 more, making a total
,of $200,000. paid to the defendant, also
in currency." The passage of the money
through the hands of Ruef -and Gal
lagher to its distribution in $4,000 lots
to the supervisors is shown, by Cooper's
decision. The other graft transactions
are cited.
• CLEAR AS THE SU.V
"These corroborating facts and cir
cumstances all stand out as clear as the
midday sun." declares the opinion,
"with nothing to explain them or in
any manner to free defendant from his
connection therewith. In our opinion
the evidence not only supports the ver
dict of the jury, but no other verdict
could reasonably be justified."
By sheer chance Attorney Ach while
leaving the chambers of the appellate
court after the decision had been hand
ed down, met William M. Abbott, attor
ney for the United Railroads and code
fendant with Ruef In the United Rail
roads bribery cases. In Second street
near the court Abbott greeted Ach
with a smiling face. He had not yet
heard of the decision. Ach stopped him
and spoke a few earnest words to him.
The eaijle faded from Abbott's face. He
turned pale and stared at. Ach with open
mouth. As Ach. having told his story,
passed on rapidly. Abbott stood In the
middle of the sidewalk, following Ach's
retreating figure as If he were stunned
by the plight of hie codefendant.
The decision In the Ruef case was
nanded down by the appellate court at
3:30 yesterday afternoon. The docu
ment contained 46 typewritten pages
and about 16,000 words. It was divided
ir.to 10 sections, each one of which con
sidered an important aspect of the Ruef
appeal.
The first part covered the question of
the sufficiency of the evidence against
Ruef. Emphatically the court decided
that issue in the affirmative.
RIGHTS! >"OT IMPERILED
The second point !s the contention
of the defendant that the court erred
In denying the defendant's challenge
to certain jurors. The court holds that
the rights of the defendant were not
imperiled by the trial judge in this
matter. In discussing this point the
court dwells at length on the attitude
.which a juror might have toward a
newspaper account. It says: "To hold
that the publication of the evidence of
witnesses, given before a grand jury
or a committing magistrate by ques
tion and answer, by an enterprising
public journal would disqualify a juror
\u25a0who had -formed or expressed some
kind of an opinion upon it, notwith
standing that It was clearly made to
appear that he could and would, not-
. withstanding such opini6n. act Im
partially and fairly, would in many
cases make it almost impossible to se
cure a jury."
The third point is the mooted ques
tion of the Information which Assist
ant District Attorney Heney had con
cerning Juror Arthur, who was called
in the case. The court holds that a
district attorney Is entitled to have in
formation regarding veniremen and
that there is no law nor principle
which requires him to devulge to his
adversary the private information he
has.
In considering the fourth point, the
court could find no act on the part of
the trial judge. Judge Lawlor. which
•would injure the rights of the defend
ant or which were in disparagement
of the defendants counsel. The court.
In considering the fifth point, rules
that the trial court did not err In ad
mitting evidence to show other crimes
committed by Ruef. but that such evi
dence was rightly part of the case of
the people. It was aso held, on the
ORIGINAL
PLYMOUTH
DRY GIN
The Critical Consumer
Always Specifies Plymouth
The Highest Quality Dry Gin Ship-
ped to the American Market .
ALEX. D. SHAW & CO.
. Pacific Coast Agents
214 Front Street, Sin Frencitco
RUEFS TECHNICALITIES ARE SWEPT ASIDE
APPELLATE COURT UPHOLDS JUDGE LAWLOR
The opinion of the district court of appeal ivas rvrilten by Presiding Judge Cooper and concurred fin by Justices Hall and Kerrigan. It is about
1 6,000 n>or<fc in length, and under \) heads discusses in detail the chief points made by Ruef in his motion for aneiv In ihintroduclory Temarki
the court, after noting that no question is raised as to the sufficiency of the indictment, says: r . : —
"Counsel have seen -fit to bring-up the whole record, including^ the ,
testimony in full by question and answer, together the arguments^ot
counsel on questions of law during the trial, and the rulings thereon. ;.tne
full and complete examination of the jurors in the impanelment of the,
jury, and even the arguments of counsel as made to the. Jur3-..^ine
record consists of 24 bound volumes.containlng over 12,000. printed, pages, .
and there are 10 volumes of briefs, aggregating com? 3.800 : printed pa.ges.
We have never before known of such & record being^ presented
pppe'Jate court. - -Theexaminatlon of the- record -and of the manj points
raised has been a herculean task, and such as the law # never contemplated
beinpr Impoced upon'an appellate court, whose function is to eass upon
questions of law. We have, however, performed the task as fully as our
Btrength. time and endurance would permit, and have .; \u25a0 passed upon
• apparently the most plausible and material points, urged by the appellant ;
to the best of our ability." • . -- '
The first contention of the. defendant discussed is the charge'that the ,
evidence is insulficient to support the verdict, . ;, •
"The question, and the sole question, for the Jury In this case was
as to whether or not the defendant offered a brine to Furey, as charged
in the indictment." Observed the 'court, adding that the direct .evidence
of the offer was that of Gallagher, Wilson and Furey, each of whom was
a supervisor at the time. The decision proceeds:
"Gallagher testiflftkthat he made the offer to Furej', and that he was
authorized by the defendant to make the offer. It 1« urged that In ,- .
cross examination Gallagher destroyed the effect of his testimony^ by
admitting that the statement as to the offer to -Furey.; was j. his pest
recollection.' but upon a careful reading of this -testimony wb conclude,
that while his evidence may have been weakened by the qualifications as
to his best recollection, yet it was not destroyed to such an :extent .that ;
we can say the jury had no right to believe it. in fact, the qualification
as to his best recollection appears in his cross examination. : t
The court the ncites portipns of Gallagher's testimony, showing that
in his direct examination the witness said'unquallfiedly. that he informed
Furev of the offer, while in his cross examination he said he "would not
be willing to say there was: no possibility of my being in' error. The •
J decision then says':
"It will be noticed that Gallagher no where and at no place expressed
nny doubt, or any beat recollection, as to the fact that he was authorized
by defendant to make the offer, and that he did talk with. various members
of the board of supervisors as to the offer ftnd as to the amount. to be paid
to each supervisor. His testimony in this respect \u25a0is direct- and un- j
equivocal."- / . v
Furey. the court points out, testified without, any hesitation on the
subject, and the evidence is quoted in which he said that Gallagher told
him the program was to grant the United Railroads the trolley franchise
and that there was $8.000. 0r $10,000 in it for Furey. The decision : points „
also to the fact that Wilson corroborated Furey on, the same point. Con
tinulnsr. the court says: • : . - )
"There is other evidence in eorroboratlon of< the testimony of the
three sunervisors tending to connect the defendant with the commission
of the pffenpe."
COURT SUM3IAIUZES: THE EVIDENCE
This evidence Is summarized as follows: That $200^000 was placed
in the United States mint in San Francisco to the credit, of v the United
Railroads; that air this sum was paid to the defendant -in currency; that
defendant paid Gallagher $55,000 of this sum, of wJiich Gallagher paid :
Wilson $10,000 and the other supervisors $4,000 each, -retaining $16,000:
for himself for his special services; that on the same day", the; money, was
received from the mint by the officers Of the United Railroads, defendant -
hired a new safe deposit box of large dimensions at -the 1 vaults of the
Western national bank, where he already had two such, boxes; that he;
was driven back and forth from the offices of the United Railroads to the
offices of the Western national bank while the money was being trans
ferred to him: that the $200,000 taken from the mint, did not appear, of
record in the books of the United Railroads; that defendant was; always
present at the caucuses of the supervisors; that various other matters
had been put through the board at defendant's dictation, for which large
sums were paid fo the supervisors— among these being the prize fliffht
ordinance, the Parkside franchTse and the Home telephone franchise: that
defendant, when he heard that some of. the supervisors had been paid for "
-their votes, by an agent of the Pacific States telephone company, said:
"They tried to take my supervisors away from me, but I fixed them. I
would JJke to see \u0084one of them get away from me"; that, while these
matters were attracting public attention defendant had Gallagher, who
was then acting mayor, make an order purporting to remove -Langdon
from the office of, district attorney and appoint defendant as district
attorney. / , • . ; ;..:-;.;:'.-\u25a0 ,-,;-.\u25a0 .:.,, *.v. ;
"There are -many other facts and circumstances In- evidence," says
the court, "but the above is sufficient to show that the supervisors were -
corroborated in regard to defendant's connection wltjK the crime. V These
corroborating facts and circumstances all stand out as clear as. the'midd*y ;
sun, with nothing to explain them or. in any manner free defendant from
his connection therewith. While It :is true that no One save Gallagher ;
testified as to defendant's authorizing him to offer thpibribe, there is :
evidence that defendant received, $200,000. that he ha dit converte/ into .
currency, that he had the ordinance passed, and .that 'Furey was,tne of
the supervisors who voted for the ordinance.* No ! one could reasonably
draw any other inference from these facts than that Gallagher was the
agent and mouthpiece of defendant.*' -/
The appellate court ends its discussion of this phase of the case in the"
following words: . - *-' ; .
"In our opinion the evidence not -o'nlv supports the verdict of the
jury, but no other verdict could possibly be justified."
. The second point taken up is the defendant's contention that the
court erred in denying Ruefs challenge of several jurors. After citings
excerpts from the testimony of Juror Arthur, the courtsays:
."The opinion of the juror, was beyond auestion founded upon public •
rumor, statements in public Journals and common notoriety: and in such
casqs it is the province of the trial court to pas upon anrf tfet^rmine "the ,
question as to whether f,r not a luror can andwill. notwitiist^ndimr s>ur't
. opinion, act impartial'/* 3.nd fairly upon the matter-to h^ submitted to
him: and where tl % ? t • ff court has heard the evidence « nd : nb«erv«d the
juror as he gay« bis n f «-*-rs every presumption is infnvor of th" finding
of the court. It is on)/ in case of palpable abhse of discretion that this
court will interfere. * • • ;t!>'y; y -•
READIXR OF NEWSPAPER XO BAR " '*.
"In these days of modern journalism the' newspapers publish every
thing, particularly In regard to criminal cases of great notoriety or involv
ing some private scandal that will furnish food for the eaprer multitude.
' To held that the publication of the evidence of witnesses, given before a
grand jury or a committing* magistrate, by question and answer, by an \u25a0
enterprising public journal would disqualify a juror who had formed or
expressed some kind of opinion upon it. notwithstanding it was clearly
made to appear that h<> could and would, notwithstanding such opinion
act impartially and fairly, would in many cases make It" imposible to
pectire a jury. • • . .. \u25a0;.?'.;<:"\u25a0'
"All -irynjjrent persons read public journals, at least to some extent
and no.'ntpiii^cnt man can read the statements concerning the commission
of a crime of e-reat notoriety, or even hear th egeneral public talk about
.«='vh (jrirne. without forming, and in many cases alab expressing an opinion
?bout it. * .*-'•• ' ,
"What we have said In regard to the ruling on the challenge to the
"iror.. Arthur, applies to the ruling of the same character as to the other
Jiiror*. Under the rules as we understand it we can not disturb the finding ;
of the trial court as to th qualifications of any one of. them."
• Taking up next the claimUhat Judge Lawlor ruled >rroneouslv when
h<» refused to direct, that Assistant District Attorney Heney produce a
renort he had. as to Juror Arthur," ffeney havinsr on the witness stand
admitted he had such a report./the afioellate court states that the attempt
by the defense to eret at the contents of the report was in the nature '
of a ' fishing expedition." Asserting that a district attorney who would -
endeavor-to pack a jury or. get upon it men who were biased against
the defendant to such an extent as. to m,ake them unfair jurors under
the law should not be entitled to practice. in a court of law, the decision
goes on to say: , , •-.... , . •. -\u25a0
"Rut in thie case w must presume in favor of the office as perform-'-'
\u25a0 ing. his official duty. While the district. attorney should always be fair
and use only legal means to secure a: conviction, yet he is the attorney
fir the people. We know of no law or principle which requires him to
divulge to his adversary the private information .he has. either in the
way of evidence or information concerning jurors. Tt is the province
of the district attorney, and also of the attorney for the defendant in a
criminal case to find out all he can in, a legitimate manner as to the
character, standing. a,nd integrity of the several jurors. • * • In any
event we can not hold that it was reversable error for the court' to refuse
to compel the district attorney to show to the attorney for the defendant
. a paper the contents of , which, so far. as the record is concerned, is a
matter of mere conjecture.". * .
I,AWT,<m'S PATIEXCE WAS TRIED
. -The fourth .point discussed in the decision is the charge of the de
fendant that Judge Lawlor was" guilty of misconduct during the trial not
only in that he displayed bias and prejudice against Ruef.- but that he
made^ remarks as to the credibility, of witnesses and in disparagement
of defendant's counsel. In this connection the. appellate court says
"ltjs evident in such case that the patience of the jurors" and of the
trial judge -must havebeen put to a severe test." • :
sixth point, that no error was com
mitted when the court allowed the
people to submit evidence showing the
acts of Gallagher, as acting mayor be
fore the graft expose, In appointing
Ruef district attorney. .
KEEPING JURY UPHELD
The appellate court declares, on the
seventh point at- issue, that It- •would:
have, been a perversion of justice for
the court to have discharged the jury
a/ter the shooting of Francis J. Heney
by Morris Haas,; under the circum
stances, which were that the jury was
properly Informed of the nature of the
attack on Heney and instructed to dis
regard that sensation in considering
the case of Ruef. The- action of the
court is sustained in reading to v the'
Jury the code section covering a de
fendant's right not to testify, the
eighth point raised \,by Ruef. J The
court's Instructions regarding jFurey;s
position as not that of an Accomplice
to Ruef are held by the higher court to
have been .\u25a0.valid. "This point is^also one
cf the - most vital at issue at the pres
i ent time in the court in the
case of Michael Coffey, one of the boo-"
die supervisors..'-.-: The': foes 'of -the. graft
* prosecution have; hoped for .-a reversal
of the Coffey - case .on the ground of
Improper instructions, on -\u25a0 just: that
point The 'appellate court -is of lower
jurisdiction than the supreme; court.;
but a contrary ruling* by,* the -higher
tribunal on this point, so definitely de-.
clared by the -appellate court ;yester- ;
day, would .cause, somewhat of a Judi
cial sensation. . •;\u25a0 .\u25a0':-\u25a0\u25a0'..-\u25a0'
In, reviewing thetenthuand final point
made by Ruef, Uhe court holds; that ;that
attorney foT/the f people' was not s gulltV;
of misconduct In his; argument i to « the
Jury and- that his argument
grounds j for , a' reversal. "The * t'attorneyj
for . the; people*;-; at v this J staged of -the
Ruef trial was Governor electHlramW.
Johnson, whose 'masterly.'' address i to ; the
jury dfcdmuchj to -knitttheYcase (against'
Ruef. ; In^ the'conclusion,!the court"*re~- ;
views' the^other* numerous; p'olnts; mai.de
by : Ruef, "but;' finds \ none'which ils^'of
sufficient importance iV. to v justify, a :re
versal/ \u25a0"'-". ;, ;i-;-i.' . v '\u25a0'':' \i.-'\ i.-'/ A.: ;-.';i.;
"It is somewhat of, a reflection upon.
THE SAN PEANCISGO ~CA^
the mode of administering' the ; laws."
said the decision "in closing, "that the
trial of a simple question as, to whether
o r not the defendant offered a bribe to
Fufey, a supervisor, should take up the
time of the court and jury for months.'.'
. "A verdict," , It ends, "should not be
set aside or disturbed for light or triv
ial, reasons."
;>.The^decision of the court of aopeal
doos not of Itself, mean that Ruef will
be Immediately returned "to the county
jail. .The. defendant is „ now- on ball,
and Judge ;\u25a0 Lawlor ' Is .-"prohibited by a
writ from the same district; court of
appeal from, r^commitinpr him.: .Should
that writ be set aside the trial Judge
would pndoubtedly, order Ruef Into cus
tody. Judgff Lawlor refused yesterday
to "discuss the status i of the Ruef case.
CLOWRV RETIRES AFTER
FIFTY YEARS' SERVICE
Theodore N; Vai '. Becomes Pres
ident of Western 3 Union
;> NEW.!. YORK, Nov. : 23.— Robert : C."
Clowry, president of the "Western Union
telegraph company, v today tendered .his
resignation ' tb; the board : of idirectors,
and * Theodore N. 1 ;. Vail, president "of ithe
AmericanUelephone and telegraph' com
pany;: ; which i'>: controls -the *' ..Western
.Union, was appointed to; fill the; va
cancy. \u25a0 '.\u25a0"\u25a0 l~ ,-'.-. ; .;.-.; :\u25a0'-.'_ ''.\. .'\u25a0:'""\u25a0" '•\u25a0\u25a0_.';:-•\u25a0\u25a0 : ;'...
r Colonel Clbwry In hie letter of reslgr
nation^said :,\u25a0.'.;\u25a0 '-,"\u25a0\u25a0; ... _."\u25a0* {-: .' \_
; ''Having: ..been > continuously, engaged
in;the ; telegraph business for more than
1 50 . years, ; I ;; feel; 1 that I am : ? entitled -to
retire from the service and take a much
needed rest." •" \u25a0\u25a0 - - : V :\u25a0.;\u25a0 .'.;, ;; . : . .*. --_', -/
COLDS CAUSE HEADACHE
Laxative- Bromo - Quinine, .-the" world
wide - Cold *and t Grip v remedy, -s removes
cause. See signature E.VWV. Grove. 25c. •
FOB ' THE -. SlCK— Martha Washington ? circle of
t^Jho Companions* of- the Forest of America; will
give a whist party In its ball-it 222 .Van; Ness
Vv avenue i tomorrow v night ? .iv Said i of , Its ,\ fund
for members . oa »: the - sick \ list.
#;v "The Judgment and .orders are affirmed." > •> .-*/ v
#< \u25a0 The, remarks ri to which'Ruef's; counsel- particularly, objected' were -that ; .
no .counsel has the .right 'to assume- 'aS harsh demeanor to ward~any "wit-;.'
ness—he has no fright *to use Insulting, language— he has no right ;to detain"
aiwltnesson the etand'"long?r than ?the ; j lnterests of justice -eeemt to
_: quire,"" and * that the frequent - interruptions . and ' exceptions of .counsel ;,
• were "well calculated to. undermine the administration of justice."
The appellate court says: - "The above, remarks 1 were ad
dressed -to counsel during i *the- progress -of * the > trials and- while -parHof —
them might: well have been omitted and are!not to be commended, we do
; "°tc* think: they were, injurious -to defendant. -.':* v • • -As we have .
sald^before, this court would not be .justified in; reversing a case: for light
or trivial' •\u25a0 reasons,*.*. but should examine; --the", whole record Mn ! determining 1
as to/whether. or not the defendant has been in jured;i.Taklng this view of .-.\u25a0'.
the matter, we' can not say that it appears that' the: judee wilfully at
temnted to credit or discredit any witness, or that he wilfully cast dis
credit upon counsel// - ;.: '
:The next matter^discussed by, the appellate judges is the point urged
.6y Rue£;thatthe- court, erred in 'admitting" evidence of other and inde
. pendent crimes committed by defendant. The /evidence objected to was
connected with bribes paidto Influence the, prize fight ordinance, the gas
fate^ordinance and the: Home telephone ordinance. , '
The appellate court,\in effect, rules that this, evidence was admissible
because it^tended logically toi show that defendant, through the same
channel, Gallagher, offered to bribe Furey. -\u0084\u25a0.,
...- - ,-The ' general -rule,"'- the court 'eaj's, --"which", is. founded upon reason .
and JMstice,- forbids thelintroductiftn of evidence which will tend to show
that the- accused has committed" any other crimes wholly Independent
from < that, for which; he fls on trial: hut the rule does not apply, when the
other offenses are not wholly, independent of the crime for which the
defendant is on trial." 'Several pages of authorities; are cited and the *
• v court sums: up on this matter: : : :: : -.-•. Mr -'•
"The; reasoning. of that case (Moody vs. Peirano) in our mind Is con
clusive as to the admlssibility of the evidence In this. Not only this,
but the court, ,at defendant's request, instructed the: iury that defendant
1 was .on trial . only for the crime charged In the indictment: that .even
if the evidence should show that the defendant had been" guilty of ; other .
crlmes. ; still they should 'not convict convinced: of defendant's
guilt from the: evidence of the precise, offense charged to a moral cer
rtainty and beyond'a reasonable^ doubt."
; IXTELJjIGiENCE 0^ JURORS PIIESCMEU : ,
* The sixth:polnt made' by the appellant was that the-court erred In :
admitting the complaint, filed in the-ense of Langdon vs. Gallagher, which ..
.\u25a0•.' wa«>lnst!tuted for : the purpose of testing the validity of. Acting Mayor
.;: Gallagher's order removinsr, Lanj?don from the office ofTdietrict attorney.
The complaint was introduced for the .limited purpose, of ; showing its
relation to Supervisor Wilson's affidavit, in which Wilson swofe that he
hadcommitted no felony, and the appellate judges say:. • - --;••.--. "' "
.-. \u25a0..: '*^\\ TemußtT emuBt presume the jurors foliave been men of ordinary intelli
gence \1 and that" they. understood >antl acted UDon the ..i evidence for the
limited' purnose • for which It was admrtted an for no' other purpoae.*'. In
fact, the, afflavlt, in order to .be understood, must 'be r taken and read In *,
connection with the complaint." \u25a0 '\u25a0\u25a0
Considerable space- is devoted to dißCUSston of. Ruefs contention that
the trial judge erred in refusing to discharge the jury and impanel a
new one after Asisstant District Attorney Heney was shot in the.court
room by Morris Haas. -The court says:
"The shooting: caused great excitement, but at the : time it occurred
most' of the liirors were In a hallway adjoining the courtroom .and did
not witness.it, although they must have heard the, shot and the .loud
noises and commotion caused by the shooting. The jurors.had Just started
to enter: the : courtroom, two of them, having passed :the door when the
shooting occurred. The deputy; sheriff immediately pressed- the jurors
back into the Jury room and closed the door. Defendant was afterwards, g
but not in the presence of > the jury, placed in custody and was guarded
by five policemen. in his trmlpsto and from the courtroom. Public meet
ings were held and the people ..denounced; and even -Insinuations were
made by leading citizens against the courts.i/As the shooting took place
during^thtrlalthe public seemed to blame defendant" for such shooting. ,
It does not.appear that the jurors knew: of these public meetings or of
the threats against the defendant. -ThQ record and affidavits on the motion
and the counter affidavits take up. about "700 pages: of record, it Is
sufficient to-say that in our opinion the court did; notabuse its discretion •
in denying the motion. There was no showing that any fact had reached
any luror of sufficient importance to disqualify , him. \u25a0 * T . qt * -^^ "ilf ~
' insisted that the court s.hould have allowed counseMo have ffiwJ.JS
several jurors under oath ; in order to :as<^ertain if they had been biassed 5
-or prejudiced by the shooting of Heney. ;In our opinion the court properly v
the that th e - c^ "^ti"'
reading to. the jury section 1323 of the pena co^. refusing. to read the t
instruction covering -that section as /suggested by the defendant. The :
anSftUaS^cOurtTnde- that as the court- specifically Instructed the jurors
SKn the material qufstionP before them, the reading of the code section ,
did no- harm At the same; time; the judges say: -\u25a0 rt/vm
- ?We hnve no hesitation in saying that: the practice Js not t^be^corn
mAnriZd Tt can serve no useful purpose, and the many propositiens of
-^^^^^^nW^oUodgmentrin^he minds of laymen from thetn^re
r*adi"«- of the sections. In fact, the court might as well have- read the
I fl ' S Vev;^ r deSirwith/S^
-"^nVfendanV^ed^heroMrt to instruct. the jury to the e^ct. that if
BBiSliiti
JOUXSOX'S - CONDUCT ; IS DISCUSSED : _ . . \u25a0fl
trtnaiK' thft aooellate judges discuss the contention that Hiram \\ .
mmmmmmmm
wmmMmmmm
with suborners of perjury!^ t%5 t/TVtftt*^^rTrison now, and some ofrthem,
some of them^r^on their . : w, to ;^ e d^3S n J 0 S re . objects and the
rl^he d Jur7^in C di^d r a^ e statement made -by counsel .
Whl^eV^S f o^
Bonsnoke of "^r. Georee^Dftzie^ Collins. ;™° "Jlftj/^.v. This was also
rev - e TT B h a ' °J £\*££yt it has examined the oth-r Alleged errors b».t finds .
: Pha ¥hfd^ S ion e conclude s :intheV^^^
"It is somewhat of a. reflection upon the mode of administering the
laws that the trialof a simple question.las to whether or not. the defend
ant offered j» bribe to Furey, a supervisor, should. take up time of the
court and of * the jury for months and create a record such amazing
'proportions: There were i only 5 two : 0r ..; three^ witnesses to v the main .fact.
Most of th<» testimony was as to matters and things which have no bear
ing upon the casS It is evident, that fin such casr. where, through the
ma^hinerv provided by law. ; a jury has^ finally parsed r upon fthej- question^
?f fact and found tiS . defendant guilty, and ,the^evidence: is sufficient to
supoort the verdict of theory, it sohuld not be set aside or^disturbe for
lSht%r . Wvlal?rVMonL- - This~ rule^as^aTways been ahered^ to by this
court and by the supreme court of this state. • .; ;^ y ; v; --,..
THIEF SECURES RIG
TO ELUDE DETECTIVES
V.M."c. A. Robbed by Fugitive
While Police Wait
SAN DIEGO. Nov. 23.— Charged with
robbing the T. MCA. building In this
city; Charles Warner, who is said to
be under arrest in Spokant.. Wash.; is
wanted by the authorities of this city.
According'to theVpoUcei Wagner was
In San^Diego two, weeks ago. A cir
cular sent .from' Pasadino. caused a
hunt for. him by .local .detectives.
He was located -in a ; hotel, .went; to
his room while; detectives were,inquir
ing for him; gave them" the slip, went
to»the \Y. M. C. Ai building, 'where,,! t
is said, he secured a number of r watches
and. about '$60 in ;cash; ; hired s a Silvery
r lg,. drove to~Delmar and vanished. •,;
Identifying Papers Stolen
. SPOKANE, 1 WaihiilNov. 23.— Charles
J. Wagner.Xmember^f, a i wealthy sln
dianapollsf family,' arrested here charged
:With ; burglaryftcommittedxat ;^L.os JAn-;
geles, November :*4, asserts he has not
been;in California since "July: * :i
'\u25a0Harrys J.Neely^a<reanestateTdealer,
and other .Spokane! friends^ assertlWag
ner^has been' in v Spokanelslrice] October
28. ! coming : from North .Yaklma,%Wash.
3-Wagner' says that h/slsult/caae,*con
taining-letters eof Udentificatloh.t, was
stolen r: f roriv; the i: lockers lof ;.the % North
Yakimat Y. ; M. C."- r AV! during ; September.
double Wedding to
BEHELD IN PETALUMA
[Special Dispatch ' lo The Call]
\vPETALUMA,^Nbv.i23.^-A double wed
dlngrj will i take^ place', in this ";city^; to
morrow, 1 - and*;the ceremony, will ibe; per
formed atVfthe ;; home^Vofj Rev, fJ:}Ji^
Hearst:;, >The /contracting,; parties "will
be i Miss f; Emm"a^MartinTandi\WnilEaV^
hart -of this city.i and!Miss*Mabel;Keni
soh c of ; San Jose V and £ Oscar | Mar tin > of
WIDOW MUST PAY
FEE OF THE COURT
\u25a0'\u25a0-\u25a0\u25a0-.. •\u25a0 - - \u25a0 \u25a0 • - \u25a0 \u25a0 '- v -
Estate of Erskine Richardson
Now Ready for Distribution
Under a decision rendered yesterday
by. Judge Coffey,; the expenses o(>ad
minlstrationof the estate of Erskine
Richardson, the . secretary of the Ral
ston Iron works, who committed sui
cide November 8; 1908, must be paid
from- the portion willed to the widow,"
Gladys Richardson.- The estate was
appraised at $91,000. Approximately
half, of «thta was bequeathed to .Mr^
Richardson, * ; and , the balance, consist
ing !• of \u25a0: 365 > shares \u25a0' of -the - Ralston llron
works and U25 V shares of 4 the" Potrero
foundry^ divided ; between \ two nephews,
, Dan\>Erskine.^.Egerton and Seymour
Plran. Egerton.* ; :' ' -.-;'.
" /The expenses incurred during admin
istration/ totaled •; between jS $7,000 • and
$B,ooo,';includins a: family, allowance of
$260 "a 'month? paid [ the -widow. C/The' law
provides tthatisuch !: expenses i must - be
borne byy,the; residuary,: legatee;? but i the
'attorneys % f orij Mrs.'r ; Richa rdson :~~- con
tended t that I she, was, not; the residuary
legatee,fbecause! the, clause; referring to
:heri;"eriumerated; T the'r property the ,tes
tator w to fr have.,: -.: They? asked,
therefore; that Hhe> expenses tof;^admin
istration-' be; shared jby' the widows ;and
the nephews. -Judge! Coffey. ruled^how
ever,-% ;that : the* final clause of "the will
must fbel considered ?av residuary clause,
the ' effect ? of ,, swhich::5 which:: is /to exempt' the
nephews v . from liability; for; the. 'ex^
penses..V-- \u25a0)\u25a0 /';^.,:>.,; ; ; \u25a0-' ;• ' v' : :>\ \u25a0\, . : •"'\u25a0;' . ,",
•v; Mrs. - Richardson began 'a contest of
the will-; a. few 'weeks after.' the 'death
of . her? husband, but did .- not > press * it.
/The j; estate ", will :" now ;be distributed
according, to: the ; will.
SUICIDE DSOPSFHOM SKYSCRAPEB— Phil
?\u25a0\u25a0; arielphU,', Nor. ; 23.— Dropping f rant , the t wel ft h
- storyJof ithef Laa<U Title >'audsTrnst 'company
•p. skyscraper, at Broad i and ' Chestnut ' streets to
is; day,? Henry C\ Brewer, a ! credit \ adjuster,' met.
.-death. ;« Brewer .was employed hy^ a firm \u25a0havinc
B offices iin - tbeii building.-? -The , police 6ar ' there
,~! is" no : doubt he ; committed -suicide. :
CRIPPEN WEAKENED
BEFORE HIS DEATH
Convicted Wife Murderer Pre
sented Pitiable Appearance
on the Gallows
Runiors That the Dentist Made
\u0084 a Confession Are Not
Substantiated
LONDON. Nov. 23.— Further details of
the "hanging of ; Dr. Hawley H. Crip
pen;forthe murder of his actress wife
show that the condemned man. pre
sented a pitiable appearance when led
'to the .gallows in -Pentonville prison.
He seemed to ! lose all fortitude as
end approached. A breakfast was
taken to him, but he^did not touch it.
His face was colorless as he was es
corted bareheaded to the gallows. The
grewsome work was soon done. The
black cap was quickly drawn over the
face, \u25a0 the noose adjusted and the bolt
drawn. ~
; Crippen, who weighed 140 pounds,
was given a drop of seven feet. Death
was instantaneous.
From the time that his reprieve was
refused, Crippen's condition had been
one of agonized mental prostration. He
would see only Clare Ethel Leneve, love
for whom, the crown asserted, was the
compelling motive ln'the murder of his
wife; -Solicitor Newton, who had made
a game fight for his client, and -Father
Carey, to whose ministrations he paid
respectful attention.
; The final interview with Miss Leneve
yesterday was most painful, and, al
ready: in the shadow of death, the con
victed man made no effort to suppress
his emotion upon parting with the girl.
During the remainder of >the day" he
was in a, state of complete nervous
collapse, retiring to his bed utterly de
spondent. ;;\u25a0. ;
The usual postmortem rumors of an
eleventh hour, confession are afloat.
These should be read in the knowledge
that on- Saturday last the condemned
man issued a signed statement in which
he protested his perfect innocence.
This morning, following the execu
tion, the "prison authorities issued any
official statement declaring that no con^
fession had been, made. Miss Leneve
denies that Crippen confessed. H»s at
torney says that, so far as he knows,
his; client. maintained his innocence to
the end.
If Crippen confessed," as Is asserted
by, an evening newspaper, he made
poor- work- ot it, for the paper gives
no authority for.; its assertions, which
are credited to an anonymous friend
of the dentist, who is himself quoted
only briefly. The • only alleged new
facts brought out were that Crippen
was treating -his wife for indigestion
and substituted poison for the proper
medicine and that he purchased in a
shop in Holborn a dissecting knife,
which, after it had been used to dis
member the body, the murderer threw
into & neighbor's garden. -
Girl to Begin Life Anew
SOUTHAMPTON. Eng., Nov. 23. — So
far' as can be learned Ethel Clare Le
neve did not sail on. the steamer Ma
jestic . for , New , York today, although
she had booked a second class passage
under the name of Miss Allen. It is
thought -she may have changed her
plans after they had been discovered,
though it is possible she will join the
vessel at Cherbourg or Queenstowh.
Friends -of Miss Leneve say she pro
posed to begin life, anew under a new
name where, she was not known in
order to escape further notoriety.
SEATTLE EXHIBIT IS
DECLARED A DISGRACE
Union Pacific Said to Have
Treated City Unfairly
SPOKAXE, Wash., Nov. 23. — The fol
lowing telegram was sent to Secretary
Tandell of the Seattle chamber of com
merce today by Secretary R. J. Mac-
Lean of the Spokane" chamber of com
merce:
"Our representative at Chicago wires
us your exhibit Installed by the Union
Pacific at land show is" disgrace to the
northwest and detrimental to Seattle.
He suggests you withdraw sam« Imme
diately If the railroad doe 3 not give you
a square deal in showing resources."
Carefully Selected
SEATTLE,' Nov. 23.— The exhibit of
-King county products at Chicago was
carefully selected^from the commercfal
museum of the Seattle chamber, of
commerce by Henry B. Hardt, director
of exhibits at many large expositions,
who says that if there is any "dis
grace" In the exhibit at Chicago it must
be because of faulty arrangement of
articles.
PET ALUM A PREPARES
* > FOR AVIATION MEET
Eariy Machines to Be Flown by
the Birdmen
[Special Dispatch to The Cell]
PETALUMA, Nov. 23.— Petaluma will
have its first aviation meet soon. The
first aeroplane built In the United
States and the first real biplane built
in this country have been j selected to
fly 1 6 miles. The aviators will have
Petaluma as a. starting point, the offi
cial location being Kenllworth park,
and the terminus at the county seat or
at the most convenient place the avia
tors can find. The .announcement of
the meet was made public today, when
Fred Wiseman, Thomas Holmes and V.
Bellnsay agreed on terms for the flight,
they have not selected the^exact date,
but the. meet wiir be held during the
poultry show.
comes , with a better under-
staiidirig of. the transient naturVof the
many , physical ills which vanish be-
fore I proper efforts-— gentle \u25a0 eff orts—
pleasant? efforts-^-rightly directed land
assisted Iby^ the - pleasant laxative' ren>
edy . Syrup •of Figs and Elixir- of Senna.
„-.; Its beneficial /effects are due ; to,*the
fact that it is { the one remedy; which
promotes internal cleanliness without
debilitating ' the organs on which it
acts. To get its , beneficial effects ; al-
ways .: buy the ; genuine manufactured
\ by7 the \u25a0 California Fig I Syrup Co/:
'-\u25a0-'.'\u25a0 \u25a0-' -•- ' ' •-• . - "-• •\u25a0 - - - -\u25a0, -
RECEIVER ASKED
FOR OIL COMP ANY
Pioneer Midway Officials Are
Accused oi Misappropriat
ing Funds
\u25a0\u25a0 - , -
Stock Holder Seeks to Restrain
Payment of $100,000 to
Manager Besides Salary
The misappropriation and wrongful
conversion of the corporation funds,
amounting In all to $150,225.67. are
charged against the directors and man
agement of the Pioneer Midway oil
company by T. J. Wrampelmelr. a lar«Te
stock holder. In a complaint filed ye»
tefday, the defendants named being I.
Strassburger, manager and vice presi
dent; Howard C.Holmes, president, and
George L, Payne, a member of the
board of directors.
* Wrampelmelr also asks the court for
an order restraining the directors from
giving Strassburger another $100,000
which he believes they intend to do.
and also for the appointment of a re
ceiver to take charge of the corpora
tion pending the settlement of Its finan
cial dimculties in the courts.
There are seven distinct charges
made -in the complaint of the misap
propriation of the company's moneyr*
the sums ranging from $50,000 to $2SO.
The corporation has Its headquarters
in San Francisco and its oil lands in
Kern county. Wrampelmelr seta out
in his first charge that Strassburger
had complete dominance over the oth«r
officials of the company and that th<»<
secretary named by them was his pri
vate stenographer. He declares that
the directors voted Strassburger $15Q»
000 to find a purchaser for the oil prop
erties, knowing while they did so that
one could be found in the Associated
oil company.
In accordance with this action, the
plaintiff says. Strassburger was given a
check for $50,000 as part payment, and
the remaining $100,000 will be paid h!m
unless the court any 3uch
procedure.
Wrampelmelr asserts that as Strass
burger was receiving 1 a salary of $500
a month as manager, he had been com
pensated fully for his services and was
not entitled to further awards.
The second charge is that Strass
burger appropriated and converted to
his own use corporation funds amount-,
ing to $5,500. The further charges are
that the defendants appropriated vari
ous other large sums to be paid to
employes, attorneys and another cor
poration of which they were directors,
without legal warrant or right.
In all of hl3 accusations Wrampel
meir" maintains that the moneys were _
wrongfully converted and Justly be
long to the corporation. He asks that
such other stock holders J»ho care to
Join with him in the expense of the
litigation be made parties to the suit.
MILITARY PRISONERS
MAKE THEIR ESCAPE
ASTORIA. Ore- Nov. 23. — Nearly 300
soldiers from Fort Stevens searched to
day for four military prisoners who es
caped from the post guardhouse last
night. The men who broke jail were
' Privates. Baldrldge. Ward, Johnson and
Robertson. Baldridge was convicted of
deserting and sentenced to serve sev
eral years In the military prison on Al
catraz. Ward and Johnson -were await-""
ing trial for desertion and Robertson
was awaiting trial under a minor
charge. *
L.KREISS&SO^ \
Furniture
for
Gifts
MAHOGAJIY mJTSTS BTAXB I
THROUGHOUT our store
— there is a wide range of
suitable pieces which have .
been carefully chosen from
the lines of the foremost
makers; gifts which carry •
the strongest assurance of
quality \u2666 values which we
guarantee to be the best ob-
tainable at the prices asked,
KAHOSASY SZWXSQ XABXS
LKREISS&SONS '
Dealers in Sheffield Plate, Furnitur*
and Upholstery Materials, y
. FIVE FLOORS
Sutter and Stockton Strceti
