The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-11-01
NOT A JURY PACKER.
Judge Murphy's Denials of InsiG-
uating Queries.
Nelson Irritates Him With Another Long
String Of Allegations and Questions.
Laughter in the Court.

Promptly at o'clock yesterday afternoon
Judge d. j. Murphy walked through the
crowded Police Court with large bundle of
documents and books under his arm TO the
witnesS-stand to be cross examined by his
antagonist, W. NJ. Nelson. The courtroom
contained nearly the same characteristic
crowd as on previous sittings OF Judge
Joachimsen in the preliminary examination
of Nelson on charge of issuing ilbelous
circular against Judge Murphy.
Nelson's lugubrious voice was first heard
when he announced he had certain docu-
ments or indictments to place in the hands Of
Judge Murphy, whom, he expected, would
testify to them.
is Leland Stanford here?" asked Neil =
son in a most matter-of-fact way, looking
round the courtroom.
The honorable gentleman was called three
times at the door, but did not answer The
bailiff's call, and the whole proceeding here
assumed such an appearance of farce that
loud laugh resounded through the place
His Honor on the bench glared fiercely and
called for order, and Nelson with depreca-
ting shrug asked for another witness, Dis
trict Attorney James ID. Page, who. failing
TO answer, the names of w. +. Davies,
County Clerk, and Judge Nee were called.
None of these men responded, and then Neil
son INDUCED in comments which reflected
on officers OF the court in not serving sub
penas and calling together the important
witnesses.
ANXIOUS TO EXPLAIN.
Judge Murphy volunteered a statement
regarding the protest case of Alexander
Austin, about which Nelson had asked the
previous afternoon and witness was then
unable to make full reply 1t was about
the Grand Jury reports and names OF FORE
men of these bodies that eXonerated Austin
in 1876 Of charges that he (Austln), while
acting as Tax Collector, had detained city
money from the treasury. Witness said he
had found dates and names, which he read.
One Grand Jury sat and considered the queS-
ton on September 80, 1876. with George l..
Bradley as foreman; the other on April 80,
1877, with William Z. Babcock as foreman,
and no final action was taken. The full re-
port of these Grand Juries was then read by
Judge Murphy, which explained the Austin
affair and Judge Murpby's position as the
then District Attorney.
Nelson questioned the witness about his
actions. why lie did not prosecute Austin to
the fullest extent. and received lengthy ex-
plantations. Judge Murphy swore he had
taken the matter before the Grand Jury
and when no indictment could be found
against Austin the alleged charges wsre no
further prosecuted.
Ibid you not know, Judge, that Austin
swindled the city out of quarter OF a mill
ion dollars?" queried Nelson.
Il do not, sir; suppose he did. but am
not sure"
did you help TO pack that Grand Jury?"
asked Nelson, with his stereo!yped insinu-
ating smile.
The Court objected and so did Judge
Murphy, who finally, 40 expedite business
and show that nothing was being kept Sc
cret." shouted angrily: 81 never helped to
pack that Grand Jury, nor any other jury
never!'
Don't you know that that was biased
Grand Jury?"
Il did not sir"
MRS. SULLIVAN TEsTIFIEs.
At this point Clarence Gray, Nelson's
counsel, and the Court engaged in con-
trOyeIsy about decency and decorum in
was called from the stand to allow Mrs.
Mary Sullivan 10 testify. whose name had
been mentioned in connection with the trial
of her brother, Harry Elmore, charged with
assault to murder. tried and sentenced in
Judge Murphy's court. Mrs. Sullivan swOre
she never offered Judge Murphy, his wife or
any of his friends $500 to buy her brother's
pardon. Nor did she ever 90 TO the judges
house to plead for her brother, although she
spoke to him about the trial on the street.
and was told tina; nothing but justice would
be done in his court.
Clerk McNulty of Judge Murphy's court
was recalled, and testified from memory
about who was Mayor and who District At
torney about twenty years ago. Nelson
wanted to know the time of Mayor Otis and
Bryant's terms of Office to help sustain his
position in proving that the quarter of
million in question was stolen, and that
Judge Murphy, as District Attorney, then
was responsible i'll large measure for the
loss.
did you not help to get up that indigna-
ton meeting in the Chamber of Commerce
against Judge Stanley in that Austin AFFAIR.""
asked Nelson.
Never" shouted the witness.
FURTHER DENIALs.
Nor go to a paper and procure insertion
of articles against Stanley~
Never"
'ls your memory always good about what
you writer"
Pretty good"
''Yo GU swoTe here yesterday that you have
not tasted liquor for twenty-five years past.
Is that a fac-simile of your signature?"
showing copy of the Examiner.
Yes, sir, replied the Judge.
Didn't you write that article about Jack,
the Ripper?"
mo, SIR"
1.-The article says you enjoyed glass of
ale in London taproom."
'That's wrong" retorted the witness. 81
never said 1t to the reporter, who called to
my house for an interview and got my auto
graph on Il card"
Nelson made speech. holding copy of
that paper over his head and referring to
knowledged by Judge Murphy, yet printed
above his autograph. He succeeded in
placing the witness in ridiculous light and
frequently aroused hearty laughter by his
illusions to the matter. He reverted to the
Austin affair and to Judge Murphy's nomi-
NJ ffnNN for h.. al