The morning call., 1891-07-24

not exceed S45O. Inc assessments are nxeu
by the laws of the Pacific Union. and there
is a limit to l per cent Oh the premiums,
which limit cannot be exceeded without
consent No extra meeting was called to
raise the assessment. There are Sixty-two
members in the Pacific Union.
Mr.. Campbell continued to interpose OBJ
jections, which were over-ruled, and the
witness was further lnterrogated about the
assessments. Mr.. Clunie bluntly stated
that he wanted to show what the money
paid to the insurance people had been dis
bnrsed for and TO whom it was paid.
Replying to the Court the witness said
not dime was paid for influencing legisla-
ton a Sacramento
sHoRTRIDGE.
CIunie smiled his old smile and asked how
much was paid to Shortrdge
The witness said the amount was $1,000 as
fee and $3.50 for expenses. He himself
was Treasurer of the Pacific Union, and
could state what his company had paid
without consulting the records. The GER
tifrate came through Mr. DuyalfS hands.
Clunie asked for the record saying he
was wilingito have the Court alone examine
it, but he wants to know when anu to whom
the money was paid. lie was quite sure it
was paid.
Campbell-"You don't know anything of
the kind
The witness admitted that L. L. Br0m-
well paid one forty-fourth of the fund. Mr..
$50 that meant something like $1,000. The
witness said that no money was paid out Of
the Pacific Union which did not appear on
the books.
Clunie asked why the Pacific Union
sought Shortridge'S aid intimating at the
same time that lie did not want to connect
the latter with the defendants in this suit
De Ravens answered that ShOrtridge was
employed by the executive Of the companies
Legislation was discussed, but nothing was
a Ill
Mr. Shortrldge to represent the joint inter-
est. When witness talked with Cromwell
he did not talk to the latter of the necessity
of defeating legislation.
NOT INTERESTED IN LEGISLATION.
Robert Dickson, underwater and general
manager for the Connecticut Queens and
Royal Exchange Insurance companies, was
knew d. N. Burns and Mr.. Brown of Brown,
Craig Il Co.. and was himself member of
the Pacific Union Company.
Mr.. Clunie-Did you pay money to any
person for the purpose of being paid TO any
other person, or FOR the purpose of infu-
eneng ,IIegislaLion9
Did you pay pro rata?"
Was the assessment levied larger than
usual?'
Il don't think So. I don't make any in
Quiries as to items"
would you pay 5000 without inquiry"
u pay assessments for running the office.
The l.remiumS there are just about as usual.
don't remember the assessments between
January aud March. pay about 500 each
time. l don't know about Shortrdge. |
wasn't interested in legislation at Sacra-
mento. | didn't bother at all. | might
have had talks with Brown as with Other
men incidentally about legislation. [ never
attended any meeting or entered into any
compact.
The witness was not cross-examined and
Mr.. Clunle anXousy inquired for Mr.. Wal
Ter. He proved 10 be among the missing,
and again the walls OF the corridors
valniy echoed the wailing cry Of the Sher-
IFS officer.
CHUTE GONE.
Mr.. Clunie rose to ask for more time and
read a second yOlumuouS affidavit from
Taylor stating what he expected to prove by
the attendance of Richard Chute, for whom
the deputies have been hunting ever since
July 9th.
Your Honor" said Mr.. Clunie. we
want Gage and Wangenheim and Chute.
The Sheriff has made affidavit that he can't
md either Gage or Nangenheim and here
Is the affidavit about Chute. | want to
prove that due and diligent effort has been
made to fud Chute. | expect to prove by
him that 100000 has been disbursed on
behalf OF the Southern Pacific Railroad and
paid TO these defendants. | think your
Honor Will bear NE out when l say that
have used all possible diligence in this case
have never asked for a postponement.
AS Tor Gage lie is evidently lodging service
As soon as il was discovered, only yester-
day, that Wangenhefm was wanted we
went after him, but he too is missing. The
Sherih return so certItes. l don't want to
FIX on any day which will Inconvenience
counsel on the other side, but ] ask your
Honor for continuance in the interests of
Justice. l think Chute very material wit
ness and We ask for continuance of ten
days.
PARTNER DICK.
Mr.. Campbell-As to the absence of Chute.
they don't show what they could prove if
they got him here. | don't think his testi-
mony could cut any material figure in the
case. There is no affidavit of what Gage
and NangenheIm could testify. We insist
that this plaintiff proceed with his case.
The evidence of Chute, as outlined in the
affidavit, is immaterial and incompetent,
showing none of the facts set forth by
counsel
Clunie-We propose TO show that Chute
was the agent of the Southern Pacific Rail-
road Company; that during the course of
the session of the Legislature, between
January and March, he frequently consulted
with the defendants; that they told him
they had formed this combine" cOpartner-
ship. We expect to show that Chute re-
ceived 100000, which he subsequently dis
Dul ocu 40 tife uelcHuanlS
Mr.. Deuprey rose and supported the OBJ
lection to receiving Chute's testimony, if it
shonld not prove that the mysterious
fnsucer had gone where the woodbine
tYlneth
BRIBERY, CORRUPTION AND FRAUD.
Let US see.' said Deuprey. what it is
that Chute is to testify that the plaintiff
cannot safely proceed to trial without his
testimony. The business that Chute was
engaged in between the Southern Pacific
Company and these legislators was about
legislation for the Southern Pacific and
various other corporations. 1t is stated
that Chute received over 100000 for legisla-
ton between Chute as an employe of the
Southern Pacific Company and these de-
PENDANTS representing certain portions OF
I the State OF California. 1t is further al
legged that he subsequently disburSed and
| paid to the defendants the sum of 100000
as the profits of the combination.
Now, your Honor, according to the
plaintiffs own statement, the combination
| was for fraud, corruption and bribery. We
| claim that he is bringing these people into
| court to obtain his portion Of that venality
1t is not competent testimony in an action TO
prove compact or contract. 1t is not CON-
| petent testimony TO prove a stated account.
| Ii is only for corrupt motives and corrupt
| purposes, which this court cannot enter
| tain; which cannot be- made either material
| or relevant
Il submit, your Honor, that there is
nothing to show any reason for contnu-
| ance in this case by reason of the absence of
this witness. They don't show that any
real effort has been made TO find Chute at his
house or place Of business. They only say
he is out of town"
Clunie-Ws went to his house and his
place Of business on July 9th, and he has
never been there since.
Alter some sharp inteTchanges between
counsel Taylor was recalled to the stand at
the request of Mr.. Campbell.