The record-union., 1892-10-25
TIE BRUNER TRIAL,
Judge Wallace's Charge to the Jury
No Verdict Yet Reached.

Judge Wallace's Charge to the Jury
No Verdict Yet Reached.
SAN Francisco. Oct. 24-At 10 o'clock
this morning Judge Wallace began his
charge to the jury in the case of Elwood
Bruner, charged with offering to take a
bribe as member of the State Legisla-
ture to vote against the so-called ticket
scalpers' bill.
The court reviewed the history of the
legal proceedings in the case, the trial
having begun on the 26th OF September.
The first question was the nature of the
crime charged and the law applicable
thereto. On March l, 1891, Bruner was a
member of the Assembly of this State.
and the question is if he offered to secure
from Ottinger 1000 to vote against AS
sembly Bill No. 706 entitled 'fAn Act to
Protect Travellers" Such a bill was in
troduced by Assemblyman Callahan, but
no action was taken thereon. Said the
court:
IF you are satisfied that Bruner agreed
to take bribe to smother the bill, then
he is guilty OF a felony. The presump-
tion is that he is innocent until proven
guilty. Before you can lind him guilty
you must be satisfied beyond reason
able doubt of his guilt.
The law does not require overwhelm-
ing proof of guilt for conviction, but suf-
ticient evidence as to satisfy the Jury the
defendant committed the crime charged.
Everything relating to human affairs is
open TO doubt. You are TO consider all
the circumstances of the case both for the
prosecution and defense; you will put
aside all prejudices and render a con
sclentious verdict upon the evidence you
have heard. The testimony is made up
partly OF remote facts which are col
lateral, but you are entitled to consider
all the testimony. If Bruner did offer to
accept bribe of 81 600 from Adolph OF
finger to vote against the scalpers' bill it
must nave been subsequent to February,
1881. If you believe beyond a reasonable
doubt that at some day between February
17th and the month Of March Bruner
offered to take a bribe from Ottinger in
San Francisco, then you will find him
guilty, even if you differ as to the precise
date. 1t makes no difference as to the
precise date of the bribe offer. 1t is the
offer to take the bribe in this city that
constitutes the crime-oflering to take a
bribe for services rendered or to be rem
dered.
'Ottinger was not an accomplice of
Bruner. He testified that he never agreed
to give Bruner $1,000. The business in
which Ottinger was engaged was attacked
by the scalpers' bill, and he testified that
Bruner approached him and offered to
defeat the bill tor money. He testified
that he did not give Bruner the 81 900.
EX-A blyman Callahan testified that
Ottinger approached him on the floor of
the Assembly and he pointed out Bruner
to him.
There is no proof as to what became
Of the bill except that Ottinger testified
that after the adjournment Of the Legis-
Iature, Bruner exhibited the dill to him.
The Dill was referred to the Judiciary
Committee, of which Bruner was Chair
man, and was not afterwards heard of.
What BECAME OF it? Callahan claimed to
be the author Of the bill, but on the wit
ness-stand he could nor recollect when or
where he drafted it. / witness testified
that Callahan told him that he drew the
bill at the request OF Brnner'
The alibi set up by Bruner III defense
was referred to at length, that is, where
Bruner was on Saturday, February u.
1891. 1t appears from the Assembly roll
call that Bruner was present on that day.
But there is evidence showing that
Bruner was in this city on that day.
noticeably the Grand Hotel register
Bruner's name appearing second on the
list of names recorded that dav
The delivery of the charge occupied
over an hour and half and was listened
to with marked attention by a large
number of attorneys and other spectators
When he had concluded Attorney Reddy
rose and said to the court that, seeing that
he had analyzed much of the testimony
for the prosecution, he would like him to
explain to the jury that Ottinger's testi-