The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-10-30
1T rs CHALLENGED.
The Legality of the Grand Jury
Again Questioned.
Bruner Takes Week to Plead-The Charges
Against the Founding Hospital
Investigated.

The public announcement that Elwood
Bruner, Assemblyman from Sacramento.
who was indicted by the Grand Jury few
days ago, would be arraigned before Judge
Wallace yesterday had the effect of at
tracing large crowd OF interested specta-
tors, among whom were number OF prom
inent attorneys.
This was also the time set for S. Bamber-
ger and NJ. Kaempfer to make their pleas.
The last named were the well-known firm
of wine merchants under the Nucleus Build
ing, who failed in December, 1890, and
whose subsequent transactions were cloudy.
They were the first parties indicted by the
Grand Jury.
Judge Wallace called their cases first On
Thursday of last week they answered the
indictments with the plea of not guilty, the
privilege having been assured them of with
drawing that plea il they so decided and
pursuing any other course deemed wisest
The chief interest that attached to their
case was the understanding that they would
challenge the Grand Jury. and so it proved.
GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE.
n. j. Waldheimer, attorney for the ac-
cuSed, withdrew the plea OF not guilty and
substituted motion to set aside the indirt-
ment He gave the grounds Of the motion
as follows:
1. That defendants have good grounds for
challenge to and hereby do challenge the pauei
OF the said Grand Jury aud for grounds OF sucn
challenge alege:
First-rhat The requisite number OF ballots
was drawn from the jury-box of the county, ana
that there still remained IN sucn boX large
number, to vii: about ll9 names OF good. law
full and cOmuetent men from which list the
Grand Jury should have been drawn.
.SecOnd-That The drawing was not had IN the
presence of the officers designated by law.
Thlrd-That said Grand Jury was not i'm
paneled according 10 Subdivisions anu 3 OF Sec
non S9j OF The Penal Code.
Fourth-That said Grand Jury was NOT impan-
eled according to Rule OF the Rules OF Pract tce
ana Procedure of the Superior Court Of the City
and County Of San Francisco, which provides as
follows:
Grand jurors must in all cases be drawn from
the list OF grand jurors selected by the Judges OF
the court, unless the Grand Jury box ntaining
the names of Jurors so selected shall be eX
hausted, without securing Grand Jury.
OBJECT TO JUROR.
ii. That defendants have good grounds for
challenge 10 an individual Juror OF SAID Grand
Jury, and hereby do nov challenge James ii.
Mundy, and for heir ground OF challenge say:
FlrSt-IhaI said Mundy Is prosecutor upon
charge against the defendants; that James Ii.
Mundy one OF the Jurors 10 said named jury, as
a member of the firm OF Jones & Muudy, did,
on or about Inc 2Sd day OF DecemDef' $3.50.
with other creditors Of these defendants, join In
a petition TO have these said defendants declared
insolvent, will fully appear. reference being
bad to The records OF this court.
Secoud-That i stale OF mind existed on his
part in reference TO this case and to these defend
ants which would prevent him from acting I'M
partially and without prejudice to the substan-
Iial rights of these defendants.
Third-Thai the Relations OF the juror NJ undy
toward these defendants IN this case were such
to render him au Improper person 10 be such
Juror over The objection OF these defendants.
This motion Is based upon the records, files
and proceedings In this action aud upon the rec
ords flies and proceeding OF this court in calling,
impaneling aud formation OF the said Grand
jury, and upon the petition and proceedings IN
this court had on behalf OF the creditors OF these
defendants, and upon the oral testimony oil 5
Bambeiger and NJ. Kaempier, and such testi-
mOny they may adduce.
CONTINUED FOR ARGUMENT.
District Attorney Barnes informed the
court that he had just been served with a
copy of the motion, and for want oil time
had prepared no answer. DE was under
the impression, however, that the points
raised had all been settled by the Supreme
Court in the case of GoldensOn.
Mr.. Waldhemer said he had no objection
to fixing future time for arguing the mo-
ton. and it was finally agreed to argue il on
Tuesday morning next.
AssEMBLYMAN BRUNER.
Bruuer's case was next called and W. ii.
Metson responded. He SAID his client was
not ready to plead and asked for more time.
Mr. Bruner had engaged c. L. Jones of
Sacramento and Patrick Reddy and j. c.
Campbell to defend him, having telegraphed
them as soon MS be was arrested, but as
Campbell was in Marysville, Jones at Au-
burn and Reddy at Fresno, all engaged in
trying cases, he had been unable to consult
with them, Notwithstanding bis utmost dill
genee.
The District Attorney said he would not
oppose a reasonable continuance, but de-
sired 10 have Mr.. Bruner enter a formal
plea with the privilege of Withdrawing il,
in order that the technical forms might be
disposed of.
Mr.. Nelson. however, did not want
Bruner arragned until all his counsel
could be present.
Judge Wallace said he could see no .objec-
ton to granting a reasonable continuance,
so gave the young legislator another week
in which TO decide his plea.