OCR Interpretation

The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, August 04, 1910, Image 2

Image and text provided by University of California, Riverside; Riverside, CA

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85066387/1910-08-04/ed-1/seq-2/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for 2

Starbuck of Oakland Says
f: Fled to Escape
:v:• "; . Prosecution
#tibrney for Kendalls Declares
That They Had No Fear
j of Proceedings
;£ero./idrove Cross to the Kendall place,
were no signs of life at the
rjancjfi .house, but the visitors thought
that, the .Kendalls might bo off after
\u2666took or. engaged' in some other part of
their ranch. : Cross waited on the place
VhlJe-G rider returned to town. Cross
followed, at noon.
: Other.m en who had appointments
?trlth Kendall went, to the place during
the Tve.k'.and saw no one thereOn Mon
:.«iayy. August J, Justice of the Peace
•tTjrofppr' went to th« Kendall place and
.investigated. He found the horse tied
.iji the stable and food spoiling' in the
'lidusfV: He notified the authorities.
yildvlie returned to Santa Rosa tonight,
tut Smith -will stay here and with a
:+ir)irer. posse will search the ranch to
:. TJ>e. Kendalls had a second place in
-the 'hills not far" from the property they
Tiad: leased a^id the search will be car
rifd -ihlo that locality. It is known
that the family is not living there now.
'That ..fact has been determined.
. !v»Tijle the baffling mystery of the
absent Kendalls is perplexing Cazadero
!*erry "little incident in the lives of the
arjiejjfng" family is being recalled. Re
cently Thomas Kendall had had some
/svords \u25a0with William Churchman over a
•3)l6*r •which Churchman had borrowed.
This incident, the subject of gossip, is
iiot given any consideration by Sheriff
'.Smith' in. his investigation of the case.
Kendall had leased his place from
Mrs. 'Siarbuck on a three year contract.
-Two years have passed and Kendall
ii&jd .i;ust begun to make the place pay,
Jtie #aid. The ranch is on the side hills
: l>ord<ering on Austin creek.
\ Thomas Kendall and his father were
\u25a0welt, thought of in this vicinity. The
tether ; js about 55 years of age, the
*on ti and the wife and mother 50.
Pine* *&c. Kendalls took the Starbuck
l^at e : ili«*s' have had trouble with Mrs.
FtjsxbHck. The Japanese wood cutters
liave b^en. conspicuous in their loyalty
«b'tor£. Starbuck. One Japanese known
aj&iTaina. was recently s^ea In an old
cabin: belonging to the Kendalls with
» dangerous looking knife in his hand.
;K*nflaji; had occasion to order off the
place; some Japanese he thought were
sftfng; : o-ti. his movements.
;j .AE?istJa.nt District Attorney Hoyle took
the statements today of witnesses In
this j.ease, • Among those whose state
, jrnehts . were taken were: Mrs. F. D.
Trp&piM:,. John Cox and F. D. Trosper.
Mr?- . trooper, wife of the justice of the
peace.. Is the- last pereon among" the
wltriessps examined, to have seen Mrs.
.Kendall. She said: "I.«m sure that
Mrs. Kendall and her husband and son
d>d riot leave their place voluntarily.
Mrs! Kendall had been staying with me
and left, on Saturday, July 23. She was
to hove, returned on the following Mon
\u25a0 As.fi but she did not. ijam Eure she
would have, told me if she were going
.away.. The Kendalls would -have to
pass .our place if they went to Caza
.derOi and. they <2i<* not."
• JuC^e" Trosper expressed the ' same
.opinion. Both Sheriff Smith and Hoyle
,4?.jcprej.sed their mystification over the
•c-as>". '-....; '\u25a0'\u25a0
'\u25a0[ "'\u25a0: t" A : s- yet, 1 * j^aid the sheriff, "we have
: noising -upon which to base a state
' merit that a crime has been committed.
But it does not look reasonable that
thJ^iKendalls would have gone off of
'ttteirjowrt volition and left things In
. syc'n shape."
;^ of Crime
) ./ NQAKLiAxb. Aug. 3. — Mrs«. Margaret
;..; -Stajrhupk, wife of H. F. Starbuck. an
: -.architect, living at 116 Lake
: . .;Etreet>.;©wns the ranch. She said:
;,,' .^'Thpmas • Kendall came with his
,-. father .and mother from the Blue
.vy mountains of Kentucky. I was anxious
;i to- secure the services of a good man
K \-vitfip could look after the ranch, and
•\u25a0". ..acrepted his. application upon the
. > lilgiiest • recommendations.
I'prA VI did. riot lease the place to him. He
: '-'\u25a0-'. 'V**?-. merely hired to supervise the
-'•;: '.work of keeping up the ranch, and
,= uh.d^r.the terms of the contract was to
a certain percentage of the
\u25a0-..;; profit and Increase each year. I pur
\u25a0 ".po^ed In the end to colonize the ranch
;\u25a0;;' subdivide it, and build homes which I
. :.cpuld offer to people of moderate or
. -/no. means to help them make a start
-. -irt life.
)' ". : .'fKondall agreed to the terms, and
.• was to keep a detailed account of the
: v.wprk on the ranch, its receipts, dls
• :..fiursement£. increase and profits. When
' . he; took charge, his mother and father
'. acjcompanied him to the place, and the
• / three lived together.
.'. . r.'Trouble started soon afterward, and
..-.since then I have had no end of dtffl
: .-.-cu-rtyin relation to the property. Ken
. flail, became involved in shady cattle
:'; -deals first, which started a feud be
.-: tween himself and two ranchers near
".. !br. •tv'llliam Hopper and John Collins
-Daring the entanglement. Kendall re
- .IPeatftdly threatened the lives of nelgh
•..: boring ranch owners. His enmity to
r \ -ward Collins was the greatest, and re
:r: r . gentry. resulted -in a shooting- affair. In
.•:...Trhich- 'Kendall's father barely escaped
;*Ke'rijaail stole hundreds of head of
II; Advertising Talks
.'*/!"•'"'. *> Faith, understanding and enthusiasm, necessary as they
' ifffM a^ C * n vs *, ness » < can not of themselves tiring success.
: uJlirl\o§k V° U must create faith in others, impart your under-
• y^^i stan °"" 1 8 to others, imbue others with your enthusiasm
; .- ' /J^ijl— • before you can sell a dollar's. worth of goods.
;>.'\u25a0/ • Talk to everybody every day in the paper that everybody reads.
Tell the people what you have that is worth their consideration; talk
quality and service; put your faith, understanding and enthusiasm in your
\u25a0advertising. . . '
• • You will win. the confidence of your public, you will build up a
business.you will make friends and followers of your customers.
We are increasing the circulation of The Call at the' rate of thou-
sands a month, we are- making thousands of new friends every day by
following the advice we give you.^ we have what the people "want, and
Xpc let them £non> what ivc have \u25a0 - ':i ,- \u25a0"\u25a0\u25a0'. -.
Mr. Merchant, we want to take you along with : us -to a ; bigger
.success. Through our advertising columns you can reach 1 50,000
readers non\ with an average of 2,000 nen> readers a jnohtK.
We can give, you 'advertising copy and illustrations that will make
your advertising space more profitable. I
Phone Kearny 86 and ask our advertising manager about it: - .
.: * ; ' — i^^^ '
The following is the statement made -from the. bench by Judge Lavvlor, in which he denied the motion of Patrick jCalhdun
to dismiss the indictments against him and the reading, of which started the -uproar; in the court: V *- .7. 7 . , . . .
On April 25. 1910. an application
was made by Patrick Calhoun, Tirey
L. Ford, Thornwell Mullally and Wil
liam M. Abbott to dismiss the indict
ments against them. The applica
tion is before the court at this time
for consideration.
When the defendants pleaded not
guilty they exercised their statutory
right and each demanded severance
from each other and from their co
defendants. Abraham Ruef and Eu
gene E. Schmitz. (Section 109&r
Penal Code.)> There have been-five
trials — three of Tirey L. Ford and
one each of Abraham Ruef and Pat
rick Calhoun.
The second trial of Patrick Cal
houn was commenced on July ,19,
1909 (case No. 1437). Owing to the
illness of one of his counsel the trial
was suspended on August 16, 1909.
and resumed on September 30. 1909.
On the following day the trial was
ordered continued until November
15. 1909. on motion of the defendant,
upon the ground of the pendency of
a municipal campaign. '
On January S, 1910, Mr. Charles
M. Fickert assumed the office of dis
trict attorney.
On February 7. 1910, the district
attorney moved the court*to dismiss
the remaining charges against these
defendants (section 1385, Penal
Code), which motion was by the
court ordered denied. (Section 7,
article 1. and section 19, article 6,
of the constitutions -sections' 1041.
1042, 112 G. 1385, 1386 and 1387,
Penal Code.)
On February 14, 1910. the parties
announced that they, were ready to
resume the trial In case No. 1437
against Patrick - Calhoun, but the
court continued the . case for" trial
until February 17, 1010. On the last
named day the cause was ordered
continued for trial until April 25,
On April 25. 1910, the four defend
ants interposed a motion to dismiss
the remaining indictments against
them. The further hearing of the
motion was continued until July 29.
1910. On the latter day the causes
were continued until thjs time.
Two things are chleflv responsible
for the court's action in respect to
the remaining indictments since the
district attorney moved to dismiss
them on February 7, 1910. First, the
court's apprehensions based on the
declared attitude of the said district
attorney toward the remaining In
dictments, and, second, the absence
from the state of James L.. Galla
gher, a material and indispensable
witness in the said causes. The
second reason will now be consid
It was the theory of the people in
the five trials referred to that Abra
ham Ruef represented the defend
ants in the alleged bribery of the
members of the board of super
visors, and that James L. Galla
gher, one of its members. In turn
represented Abraham Ruef in the
transactions. In this way the court
is able to determine that the testi
mony of this witness is material,
and now holds, as a matter of law,
that unless additional testimony Is
pjroduced. it is Indispensable to the
establishment of the res gestae.
In the early part of December,
IPO9. it became known that the wit
ness had departed from the state.
Up to the present time it has not
been shown whether he had been
formally subpenaed or was other
wise under the authority of the
court to appear as a witness in the
trials of the remaining indictments.
If he is subject to the authority of
the court in any of those cases his
absence would constitute a criminal
contempt, and he could be extra
dited from any other state having
provisions of law similar to those of
this state. (Sub. 4, section 166, and
section 1548, Penal Code.) ;
In this . connection it -may be
proper to point out that practically
ever since issue was joined on these
indictments they have been on. the
calendar for trial, and that during
the trials referred to the cases not
actually on trial were from time to
time called and the witnesses ad
monished by the court to appear on
the deferred date. But it has not
been ascertained whether in this
manner the missing witness has
been so admonished to appear so far
as the remaining indictments are
In the month of January, 1910, the
court directed that all persons who
could give testimony concerning the
absence of the witness be subpe
naed. On January 24, 1910. the first
hearing was had and on several oc
casions thereafter witnesses have
been orally examined on the subject.
From this oral testimony it is dif
ficult to determine the intentions of
the witness concerning his departure
from and his return to the state. It
seems that in the latter part of No.
vember. 1909. he left for Europe,
accompanied by his wife. Robert F.
Gallagher, a brother of the witness,
testified in effect that the witness
never stated he Intended to absent
himself as a witness in the graft
cases and made no suggestion of
that nature; that he. Robert F. Gal
lagher, gained no such impression
from anything he did say, except
that that it was a disagreeable sit
uation for him to be a witness, and
that their talk proceeded along the
line that there was not going to be
the choicest cattle and blooded horses,
selling them as his personal property.
He kept no accounts and permitted the
stock to fall off. He even, killed some
of the best stock and shipped it away,
pocketing the proceeds. Aside from
using the money brought in from the
ranch, he misappropriated my own
funds for his own purposes and I lost
a great amount of money.
"This was unknown to me for. some
time, but my suspicion was naturally
aroused, and I started an investigation
which brought startling revelations.
"I was determined to place him in the
penitentiary for his offenses, and
brought a lawsuit against him. I do
not believe the rumor that he has been
murdered. I know that feeling • ran
high against. him, but I do not think
that the ranch owners in the vicinity
woulfl go to such violence. I am con
vinced that his disappearance, has been
caused by the criminal charge I have
any future trial in the graft prose-
cutions. This brother testified fur
ther: . ' _- *- " /
"He did, state < on one> occasion
.something 1 to the effect that Burns
v had disappeared and that -Heney. had
disappeared and that- there^wasn't
any *prosecution; that^the incoming
district-attorney would not certainly
bein.earnest in the prosecutioru".v;
' Other witnesses -testified to a" vs-'
riety of facts touching the departure
of ;the witness from ; San- Francisco
and hjs declarations on thevgeneral
subject.: Pr.. : Alexander, Warner.,
gave testimony to the effect that he
went" to Europe on an Atlantic,
steamer with the witness and his
wife, fj Thomas J. Gallagher.'a"nother
brother, among other things quoted
the witness to the effect that he was
going to Europe; that he might set
tle.in an eastern state; that he made
no secret of his purpose, and that
William J. Burns, special agent of
the former administration in the
district attorneys office, knew of
his intention to leave. Nothing defi
nite appears in the oral, showing
concerning his intentions on 'the'
subject of his return, and so far
as that showing Is concerned the
point is more or less involved in
conjecture. But on July 29, 1910.
Frederick L. Berry, the assistant
district attorney assigned to this
department of the court, filed an
affidavit embodying clippings from
the local newspapers of the previous
month, which state that the wit
ness was. at the time the articles
were written, in Vancouver. B. C
From these clippings it appears that
the witness intended to permanently
locate in Vancouver. The only
tangible evidence from the witness
himself,, however, is found in his
letter to Thomas J. Gallagher under
date of June 29. 1910. in which this
excerpt appears:
"In reply to your inquiry I can
not state when I shall return to San
Francisco, If at all. I may remain
here." . •
In ray judgment a review of the
showing up to this time leads to
the inference that the witness left
this jurisdiction and- Is remaining
away , because of some form of un
derstanding or agreement. The cir
cumstances under which he left
California clearly show that he was
acting guardedly, notwithstanding
the testimony, which there Is no
reason to doubt, that he informed
.several persons of his intention to
take a trip. When the quoted state
ment of Robert F. Gallagher was
first made T was disposed to assume
that the witness left the state prin
cipally, because he believed the
prosecution was at ah. end and that
he made hie plans quietly no that the
step would not occasion comment.
In other words, that he did not be-,
lieve there would be any further at
tempt to prosecute the so called
graft cases. But from a study of
the entire'showing I can not adhere
to that theory. I repeat that up to
the time his presence was discovered
In Vancouver the showing was un
certain as to whether he really in
tended to return to California, and,
if so. when he would return. It was.
to be seen that the action of the
court would It>e influenced by tlils
uncertainty, so when the exigencies
of the situation called for a definite
showing as to the witness" inten
tions he seems to suddenly appear
in Vancouver, .where, under the
treaty conditions, .He would be, safe
from extradition, and is promptly
discovered by the reporter of a New
York paper. In the clippings his
quoted statements on the subject
of his intentions are unequivocal.
He is to make his home in Vancou
ver. But his .personal communica
tion to Thomas J. Gallagher, -al
ready referred to, which he probably
realized would be : produced in
court, is significant in tenor and he
is apparently less certain of his-In
tentions. This would tend. to make
his future action consistent should
he hereafter return to California.
From the entire showing I do not
entertain any serious doubt as to
what his real purpose is. I am in
clined to believe that when the ne
cessity for his presence as a witness
has passed he will return. To en
tertain any other view or be in se
rious doubt on the point is to ignore
brought against him, v and to escape
which he.has fled the country, in com
pany,with his mother, and father. I
have had to engage five lawyers in
order to oust the man."
Fugitives, Lawyers Say
BERKELEY. Aug. , 3.— That Tom
Kendall, his father, Enoch, and mother,
Ura' Kendall, disappeared ' from their
'home near Cazadero to -'a Void prosecu
tion on a criminal charge, of appro
priating for their own, use the,prop
erty own id by Mrs. Margaret E. Star
buck of Oakland, is the declaration of
Attorneys H. W. Brunk, William O.
Miner and R. M. F. \u25a0 Soto, who ; have
been retained to have' the Kendalls
ejected from the 1,000 v acr«r ranch.
According to Brunk' the 'disappear
ance of the; Kendalls; cannot be ex
plained in any other way, in view of
the fact that two suits, one to . ejict
them from the ranch which they' are
alleged to occupy unlawfully and J the
other to prevent theni: selling property
belonging to Mrs., Starbuck, ara on
tneeve of trial in Santa, Rosa.
The Kendalls, according, to. Brunk,
were introduced jjto • .Mrs. \u0084 Starbuck
about a year ago and" shortly after
ward occupied the big ranch.
"A'sult was' begun] last . August to
ejict the Kendalls. from the property,
of which I know nothing," said Brunk
todaj'. "We commenced two suits- for
Mrs. Starbuck ; and filed them June ' 7
of this year to eject the Kendalls from
the' land and replevin the stock that
Tom Kendall is alleged to have? sold
and to enjoin him", from disposing of
other property. / "
Mrs. Starbuck Defeated
[Special Dispatch, to .'The Call] ;
SANTA, ROSA, .Aug..'. 3.— Mrs. Mar
garets Starbuck ; has had considerable
litigation: with / Mr.> and : Mrs. :; Enoch
Kendall and; their son;- Thomas A.'Ken
dall.isince; they - leased,- her -i property
nearly two" years agor but in it:all she
has been defeated.' r ; • '~ ,
, • About a : year after the I Kenda 11s had
taken -the lease Mrs. J Starbuck declared
that I they had j violated 'its ;;terms arid
sued .them to; enforce Hhe ' lease," : but- In
this was r defeated, the /court holding
that- there, had been no -violation of its
terrns.^; ; *r'\i. .' .»•\u25a0...-.-\u25a0... '\u25a0\u25a0.•.;.;
Recently, she ", filed ;a;suit for injunc
tion seeking, to restrain, the' Kendalls
from selling the; livestock bn'the place
and a- Second, suit- was" filed; In 'an effort
to \u25a0 eject .them . f roni jthe^property," ' Mrs.
Starbuck.. claimlng'Hhat^they held it
without, a*- lease., : The;; injunction^ was
denied, and the ejectment 'suit is "still
pending. •' r%&££S££B&s&*- r ''^'':'~- : ''-
— — _ — _ _ — ; — _ _ — ___ .--\u2666
the '\u25a0'inherent probabilities of the
.showing -and -to deny a fair consid
eration to the known history of this
Now it must follow that. lf the
witness has left and is remaining
.away from the state because of an
arrangement of some nature affect
ing these cases the responsibility for
his absence should be placed where
it belongs. On April 25, 1910,- the
district attorney stated to the court:
* * * And it appearing: also that James
I>." Gallagher laft .with th« consent and con
nivance of those -who had preceded me in
office, I at this time do not wish to assume
any responsibility . for his disappearance.
Whether he shall return or not I 'can not
say. Some of th« witnesses who were called
here testified that he went away with the
intent and with the purpose of embarrassing
my administration and that he was sup
posed to keep away until such time as cer
tain persons would request his return. * • •
The foregoing fairly states the
position of the district attorney on
this point, as repeatedly-expressed
in court since he first moved the dis
missal of these indictments. Tf the
charge that the "former administra
tion entered into a bargain with the
witness to default be. true there
would be no alternative but to dis
miss the indictments without delay.
But I have found.no evidence In the
showing tending to support so grave
a charge, and Upon sound reasoning
it would : seem to; be opposed to
cv.cry: reasonable 'probability. • Ac
cording to the showing William J.
Burns left .the- state abo_ut three
•weeks ; in advance 'of : thV witness,
'and, so far as the eourt.'=is advised,
he has not since been in the; state.
That the former .administration may
have distrusted* the official inten
tions of the district attorney toward
these indictments might be assumed
-.from all the surrounding •..circum
stances.But it does not seem prob
able that the former administration
would Induce a material and indis
pensable witness to leave the state
and thereby make it easy for the
district attorney to secure a result
which otherwise . might se
rious embarrassment. So far as the
showing 'Is concerned there is no
tangible proof tending to support
the charge of the district attorney,
nor is there any proof which would
Justify such an Inference. •<
Nor, on the other hand, do I find
any formal evidence in the showing
which tends, to bring the responsi
bility for the disappearance of the
witness home to these defendants.
In the absence of, tangible proof
neither side should be charged with
so grave an act. But if there has
bsen. complicity on^he part of
either of the parties every effort
should be made before disposing of
these cases. finally, to establish the
facts. It has been pointed out that
if the former administration entered
Into a bargain .with : the witness
looking to his absence the applica
tion should be granted without de
lay. And clearly, -if the defendants
are responsible for the absence of
the ivitness, under a* familiar maxim"
of the law. the application -,- shoni i
be. promptly denied. (Section 3517,
Civil Code.) ,; \u25a0 ;
There being no tangible proof,
Wm H B jl^tw I (bb -I BBH fl^fl I B^^ |Bh \u25a0\u25a0 n bklm OOP
I ' — Z^ESjbV I 831 f/>
L^Sgg&£S?. Limited
A Delicious Food
for breakfast or lunch that.most everyone likes—
% : distinctly and pleasingly different from the usual—
r \u25a0 '\u25a0-- : -." ''<.--:\u25a0-' \u25a0 :~: ~ / ::\- -."~'.\ - • '. = •"• < ;
Post Toasties are^ready ; to serve^ from the
package with cream^" or^milk^^nfa^or with the .
' entire family and happijy solve "what to eat"
: r in hot weather. •
• v , Postum Cereal Co, ' Ltd , Battle Creek, 'Mich. ; . .* : ;
therefore, .before-^ the court of the <>
complicity/of the:partles,should: the °
pending application be J granted at ' °
thiaUlme?: \u25a0 :<\u25a0-;\u25a0 ... \u25a0. ' I
A"~person /accused of crime fa?en
titled to a speedy trial. (Section 13, o
article 1, Constitution.) V " : V , - +
SThls' fundamental right* has been <>
made the subject of .; pro-- i
vision: ;The second subdivision ,' of i
section 1352 of the PenarCode pro- \u2666
vides that:? . :. * t
\u25a0 Unless *'.' good ~- cause |to . the contrary \u25a0 Is J
shown; the court must : order i the prosecution - T
dismissed if. the: indictment ' is not brought \u25a0 ?
to trial within 60 days after tho ,' ftliue \u2666
thereof. • ..„...',.\u25a0.\u25a0 f
- \u25a0\u25a0*---. \u25a0' :.-- \u25a0\u25a0:\u25a0- ,; '-\u25a0*\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0, -ivY „\u25a0 . :i; .•/ -•
.More than 6p days have run in fa- J r<>
vor of this application, and the ques- .>
tion presented ;at this time is i
whether the showing : touching the- f
absence of James L. Gallagher shall °
constitute "gopd cause"' within the <\u2666
meaning of the law. This term must .°
be construed and applied according *'
to the, t peculiar, circumstances .of o
each* "case. It should be interpreted o
so that the, rights, of both parties o
shall be: equally recognized. ' The *
absence of a material and indlspen- i
sable witness for. the people would, o
under,, proper, circumstances, 'con-J^'
stitute; a good cause,^provided that \u2666
good faith and diligence are shown °
inrthe effort to produce the witness. °
livrelßergerowdSS California, 349)
is"; a leading authority. on this ques- o
tion and is almost invariably cited \u0084
in support of applications of. this 4
character. It is proper to point out 4
that in the prevailing opinion the A
court studiously^^ eliminates from the «.
pertinency of the authority the ab- -^
sence'orillness of a witness for the "
prosecution.^ . \u25a0- T
.The conclusion I have, reached is 7
tHat under the law and the sur-' f
rounding • circumstances, including ?
the recent action., of - the witness, J
. that another reasonable continuance x
should be directed in order, if pos- 4
sible, that the duty of the court in <\u25ba
the premises shall be rendered more <>
; clear. Afthls time the court is not <\u25ba
; satisfied that the relief sought [<>
should be -On the . other °
hand it is realized that a final de- "
cision should not much longer be *
delayed. In the determination of I
this matter the .court, . while fully I
recognizing the rights of the de- I
fendants, is mindful of ; the rights >'
of the people and its- own sense of \u2666
responsibility and Is anxious to \u2666
avoid a decision which will serve as
a mischievous precedent. \u25bc
It is idle to attempt to Ignore the f
inherent probabilities of -the situ- ?
ation presented. A material and in- t
dispensable witness is absent from T
• - the state and the court is called o
upon to intervene because the dis- <(
trlct attorney has at practically <>
every turn followed the lead of .<>
these defendants, -Through the in- .<>
fluence of Unusual agencies the law <>
has broken down so far as thes« 4>
cases are concerned. - The crimes"""
charged are of the most serious na- "'
ture, because such criminal activity °
tends to sap the very foundation of \u25a0]'
government.. The statute of llmita- ;,
tions has run against these charges, o
and if the application is granted, ..
therefore, there can be no further <>
prosecution, no matter what devel- <>
opments may follow. (Section 800, <•
Penal Code.) In the trial of Patrick "
Calhoun the court admitted evidence < h
of a ,most extraordinary character "
on the theory of the people that it °
.tended to show guilty consciousness "
on the part of the accused. This ;,,
evidence was not controverted. It o
included the dynamiting of the home <(
..of the witness under, circumstances \u0084
1 which threatened not only his own" <«
life, but also the lives of several <>
other persons. A certain other <•
building, the property of the wit- °
ness, was subsequently blown up "
•by. the use of dynamite. •If the ap- T
parent design .on the life of the wit- f
ness had been successful the court, '<[
would bo less perplexed in deciding o
a question of this character. It is A
possible that these experiences, and \u0084
not the suggested arrangement with <>
the witness are responsible for his <>
absence. The evidence also Included °
an effort to suppress testimony by. t
an attempt to induce, a witness to *
.leave the- jurisdiction of the court <(
and other matters of a' serious na- \u25a0 °
ture. . \u25a0 \u2666
And, finally, while the court is *'
clear that it should not base any o
- action at thjs time upon the as- ..
sumption that either side is re- .<>
sponslble for the absence of the wit- <>
ness, yet reason and the exercise of <\u25ba
a sound discretion dictate that the <\u25ba
court should act* with prudence. ["
Before the Indictments should be. f
finally disposed of every reasonable <l
effort should be made to get at the °
truth of, the situation. The disposi- °
tion of grave charges other than on o
their merits is not to be encouraged 4
and should not be allowed, except In *
the face of a strict legal necessity. \u25a0<.
Let the cases be continued until 10 <\u25ba
a. m., Monday, August 29, 1910. So <\u25ba
ordered. \u2666
Judge Forced to Leave Bench to I
Silence Uproar Which
Followed Decision
Defendant Addresses Court De
- spite Efforts of Lawlor to
Keep Him Silent
Continued From Pace 1.
inducing-a "witness to leave the state,
that was brought out In 'the trialof
Calhoun, on the theory that it tended
to show" guilty consciousness on the
part of the defendant."
"If your -honor please/ loudly de
clared Stanley. Moore when the judge
had concluded reading, "we insist
upon our. right .* to reply to some of
these Insinuations and remarks that
your honor has made." ,
"I will suggest to counsel that he
will -not reply, and that if he Is. dis
posed 'S.o reply he will resort to the
agencies of which. he has availed him
self, so frequently during, the ex
perience this court has. had," sharply
replied the judge.
'. .-"We assign that as the last word of
your partisanship," returned Moore,
and raising his voice to a shout he
proceeded^ "We( insist on our right to
reply. here in this forum In which you
have made these charges and insinua
tions. We intend to stand here until
we -are .afforded the opportunity to
reply, which Is our right and our due.
and which any. court -with a speck of
fairness and impartiality will freely
accord us." • — .
"You will take your seat," directed
Judge Lawlor. "if you vlo not I will
adjudge you guilty of ! contempt."
Moore utterly disregarded the warn
ing-. "I intend to stand here." he said,
"as 1 have told your honor before, and
reply freely and frankly to what your
honor has just seen fit to say as a
political document, and in the doing
of politics from the bench that you
stultify in your occupancy."
i Then Judge Lawlor did what he has
more, than once threatened to do to
the Calhoun attorney.
. "I adjudge you guilty of contempt."
he said, "and as a punishment therefor
it is hereby ordered that you be con
fined in the county jail for the period
of five days."
Next A. A. Moore, who... is the father
of Stanley Moore, placed himself in
; "I fully agree, your honor, that you
are a partisan, a bitter partisan, and
doing dirty politics, anJ have been
before these indictments were ever
filed in this court, as the events of
that midnight deal in which you par
ticipated', on April 29 amply demon
strate." said A. A. Moore. .
"The bailiff will take the counsel into
custody," directed the judge.
Then Stanley Moore displaced his
father in -the spotlight. "Does -your
honor refuse to permit any reply to
those remarks you have made?" he
asked. .
"I adjudge A. A. Moore guilty of con
tempt of court," said the judge, "and
order as punishment that he.be con- 1
fined in the county jail for five days."
"I 'have here." again interposed the
persistent younger Moore, "the ballot
that contains yo.ur honor's name and
which contains the inspiration for
these remarks you have made.'.*
"Take the counsel Into custody, Mr.
She'rlff," was. his honor's reply. The
bailiff tapped Stanley Moore on the
shoulder and led him away from the
lawyers' table and Into the inner in
closureof the court, where the. young
attorney remained during the rest of
the. proceedings.
District Attorney Fickert was the
next participant in \u25a0 the wrangle. He
said: N
"I desire to state my conclusions as
to the absence of James L. Gallagher,
and I request fhe court to accord me
'the right to reply to the aspersions
that have been cast upon me from the
bench." • \u25a0
Judge Lawlor said that when It be
ca%ie necessary for him finally to de
termine the court's attitude he would
give the district attorney full oppor
tunity to address the court.
"Well, I desire to have that right at
this time, if your honor please," re
turned Fickert. "You have from time
to time cast reflections upon me and
my office for my attitude in this mat
ter. You have now stated that I fol
lowed the lead of these* defendants. I
Continued on Pace 8, Column 1
Fairmont Hotel
Beginning September 1, 1910.
Table d'hote
or American Plan
dining: room Trill be conducted.
In addit.'on to the European plan
or a . la carte restaurant. .
Sosnr. modern rooms, thoroughly clean. 50«
day and np, $2.50 per wk. up; prlrat* batn. 13
per wk. np. 730 Eddy. ItaakUn 4200. Take Eddy
car from ferry. .
Gore, . Corner / Mwrket, Kearny aad
•~ Geary. Streets— Dovrnatalra •\u25a0"
-.We give more for the money than
any line of \u25a0 business In S. b '., and
have done It for 14 years. ' . .
' Jndse for Yourself. \u25a0
. -Tour.-cholce of one of thc'follow-
Ingr i dishes, -with i a of wine.
steam : or lager, beer, buttermilk or
a cigar, for sc.
..-: Portion . of ; crab served wtth two
sc ; purchases. . • -\u0084 \u25a0
Chill con Cam* " Crtbi "
Mexican Beans Clam Jo!e«
,-.; Cltm Chowder t B «ef SteW*
. .Corned Beef Hasb Kcast Beef" '
,-. Steamed Clams ; ; - - \> \u25a0\u25a0 Uotton Stew "
9«. m. «o2p, jn. ;*;; Parcels : checked
--.free for? pntroaa.'v
Ingersoll Craft Must Go Through
Exacting Maneuvers Out
side the Heads
Army Officers Will Determine
Vessel's Suitability for Ala
> \ ririe Emergencies .
Tests will be made today of the
Ingersoll lifeboats outside the heads
under' the direction of Major H. P.
Young, depot quartermaster. • Accom
panied by Major Scott and Captain
Grant, assistants to the depot quarter
master, and other officers of the army
and navy. Major ToungwDl leave thla
morning in the transport Buford fr»»
several hours* experiments with the
boats. Among the tests to be made
arejts suitability for picking up men
at sea an'J for abandoning ship in
case of disaster or fire. Landing
through the surf will be tried also,
provided: the sea Is rough enough to
make it. a reasonable test.
Colonel W. A. Shunk, First cavalry,
who has been : ordered frotn tho
Presidio to "Walla Walla., will leave In
a few days for his new post- Major
Joseph A.x Gaston will be in command .
of the cavalry troops at this post.
Major Thomas B. Lamoreux. ; coast
artillery corps, commanding Fort
Miley, has been granted two months*
sick leave.
The maneuver board, consisting of
Major Wright. Captain Bjornstad and.
Captain Brees, wtilch convened Mon
'JayVat army headquarters' tn this city,
will leave in a day or two for Atasca
dero. to carry on Its work of formulat
ing problems for the coming man
euvers tn^re. :v: v .^" ':Ts '"\u25a0'>;\u25a0\u25a0
Lieutenant Edward D. Kremers,
medical corps. Presidio of San Fran
cisco, will proceed today to. Fort Miley
for temporary duty "pending the as
signment of a regular medical officer.
TRIES TO TRICK JUDGE — Because he swore
falsely by raisins his Wt hand Instead of hi*
right, Harry Kalpas. alias Anstidon. a waiter,
charged with stealing a reToWer from O. U>
renzc*. 154^ Polk street, was conricted bx Po
lice Jndgi* Con I.i n yesterday and sentenced to
sis months In the county jail. .^ .
A'jjMs Concord—with Ars-Sotch
iHrW Evanston— with Buttonhola
• " *" m THE NEW
FOR SUMMER. Hish •aoora for looir- *
lew enoach for comfort and plenty of room
for the ti« ta .lid* in.
'->*> -: i',; isc.eacn,atorts<!.
Clnett. Peabody <k Company Arrow Cn?s. He
tL U W
to ail. •
During the Summer Months, with
< Stop-over privileges *' J"
Six Hnsdrsd Miles of Unsurpassed Scensrj
tftroush tie Canadian Rock} Moantaias]
Call or write for Rates and Informatlori
E. E.'PENN :
General Agent. Passcngsr Dcfartmcnt
645 Marktt Strut (Palact Hottl Bulldlifl)
Stockton Street Asorc Sutter
•' San Francisco
Americas Flan, 13.00 Day
European Plan, I^o Day
A botel wtth erery modern coaTealeaee.
Ererj room connectlns bata. "*"•
Newest and Most Popular Commercial Hotel.
IT-1» Powell St. at Market
Six atorles or «olld comfort: 10 Brat cl*«s «at>
lna; bouses wttWa 1 block. Bates. $1. $1.50 toM
P«r £*j; 223 roouij; not a dark roosi la tSm
r. t. and A. W. TmtPtS. Praps, and Mess,
Former Owner* Royal and Hamilton Hotels.
Special 40c Luncheon
• Music Every Evening
I'". • ' - : " - r: \u25a0\u25a0- \u25a0
Want to Loan Money?

xml | txt