The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-09-20
MARRIOTT HELD.
He Must Answer for Libel-Judge
Murphy Speaks.

''We waive preliminary hearing" said
W. II. L. Barnes yesterday in Judge Xix 5
court. speaking for Frederick Marriott,
publisher OF a weekly paper, charged with
libel.
But l must hear enough evidence TO JUS
tify me in holding or acquitting the defend
ant" replied the Judge. Accordingly testi-
mony was given by the prosecution, and
Marriott was held in bonds of $1,000 to APP
pear for trial in the Superior Court. He is
accused by Superior Judge ID. j. Murphy
with having published a libelous article on
his Honor in connection with Little Pete"
Judge Murphy was present with his coun-
sci, ex-JUdge c. Il. Darwin.
Paul Desmond, clerk in Judge Murphy's
court, testified regarding his connection with
the Superior tribunals, but what he had to
say was of u technical nature.
Detective Robert Hogan testified regard
ing his connection with the Little Pete
case, when he seized the singular papers,
which have never been satisfactorily ac-
counted for, in the Chinese safe in room IN
Chinatown nearly three years ago. He
stated that the papers contained entries of
money paid to various public officials as
presents" from Chris Buckley down to
petty officers On the list there was no
entry Of $500 present to Judge Murphy.
Judge Murphy then took the stand
anxious to make statement.
What in the world Induced you to take
money from Little Pete in this case?"
asked his attorney.
"Well. did not take any money from
Little Pete, and nothing induced me to do
it, sternly replied the Judge, his voice sug-
costing an excited state of mind. " never
spoke to Little Pete and lie never spoke
TO me about the case while ii was ON trial,
or at any time, and no one else ever spoke
n m q bnuf il | had 20 in
any way, shape or form with Little Pete
or anybody in his behalf, and lad no inter-
ference with that case at ALL"
Have you observed a communication en-
titled Little Pete and Murphy, in a weekly
paper on August 30th?"
- have read il.
lis il true?"
ut IS not true III any particular excepting
the fact that it speaks Of me as a Judge. AS
to anything rejecting on me as Il man or as
an official there Is not one word of truth in
it, L have never had anything TO do, di-
rectly or indirectly, with Little Pete at
either OF his trials, or with anybody in his
behalf L never received 81 or $500, or
any other sum in that case nor in any other
case since | have been ON the bench; nor
has there ever been an improper proposition
made TO Inc but once, and that | resented
at the moment | have never received 81
for any official duty or any performance of
any duty since 1 have been on the bench, eX-
ceptng my salary. Nor did ever while 1
held any public position. l have never
spoken to Mr.. Crimmns or Mr., Kelly about
a denomination or reelection to any position
that | held. Nor has one word ever passed
between them and me relative to il.
whether Pm slated Or not, l don't
know
Il know nothing about any daily papers
in this city. l don't know what that part Of
the article means (pointing to the reference
to the 'dailes" i'll the alleged slanderous
edltoriaD. l know something about the
weeklies, but nothing Of the dailies."
The Judge closed his statement with these
sarcastic words, and Marriott was held for
trial.
1t is stated that William NJ. Nelson, who
figured i'll the Shalon-Hill divorce case.
wrote the article complained of, and, fur
ther, that he is no particular friend of judge
Murphy. He cut figure i'll court yesterday.