The record-union., 1892-06-07
AFTER WEIGER'S SCALP.
Eastern Creditors Pushing the Charge
Against Him.
Some Testimony and Considerable Ar
gument Heard Yesterday The
Case Again Continued.

Inc examination OF Charles WeIger,
charged with obtaining goods under false
pretenses from the firm of Sharpless
Brothers of Philadelphia, was taken up
and occupied most of the day in the Po-
lice Court yesterday. Judge S. S. Holl
appeared for the defense and Grove l..
Johnson conducted the prosecution.
A. L. Flower, agent for Sharpless
Brothers, was the first witness examined
Tor the prosecution. He testified that be-
tween the 10th of August. 1891, and Feb
ruary, 1892, Weiger purchased from the
Philadelphia firm goods amounting in
the aggregate to about 81 800, and paid on
account something over $500, leaving a
balance against him of 81 ,0S3.
The evidence tended to show that the
| goods were shipped upon statements
made by Weiger to the firm, or its agents,
that he started business free of indebIed-
ness and with a cash capital of $4,000,
| and upon reports from Bradstreets and
| Dunns Commercial Agencies, to whom
! elger had made statement Ofhis assets
and liabilities.
Neiger's business was attached in Feb
ruary last, and the Philadelphia firm WAS
notified by the agencies.
! w h2n the prosecution introduced the
statement alleged to have been made to
! Brauslreet 5 OF ms commercial standing,
IL was objected TO by the defense, and a
/ wan III discussion enSued as To the bearing
| OF the statutory provisions upon mercan-
tile agency reports or records.
HOlI, for the defense, held that any rep
! resentatiOn made by Weiger 10 the agen-
cies was immaterial and irrelevant, mas
| much as no specific showing could be
made that he made any such statement to
Ia. i
particular person or firm. ana based his
| objection Oh the ground that the charge
was not specific and the evidence not ad-
misSible.
The objection was sustained by Judge
! CravenS, who observed that if the state
mentS made to commercial agencies were
admitted, he doubted whether there could
! be any failure without a criminal prose-
cutiOn following.
x. y. Iuttle, IA San Francisco salesman
! who was agent tor the Sharpless firm last
| year, teStihed that when lie approached
| Weiger to sell him goods he had several
| conversations with him regarding his
! financial standing, and that Weiger
| claimed to have $1,000 or $1,000 and
owed nothing; that he proposed to do q
| cash business, and asked credit of him,
as agent for the Philadelphia house.
| Tuttle claimed that he had faith in Wei
gers representations, otherwise he would
| not nave sofa MN the goods.
! ON GRO oss-eXamination, the witness said
! he was not authorized by the firm to
credit any one, but simply sent in his
! orders for goods, subject to acceptance
! by the firm; but that he usually sent q
statement relative to the standing Of
| customers TO the firm. Besides this the
| firm had blank form which it sent to its
customers to be filled out. In December
last Weiger reaffirmed his prior state
ment that he had $4,000 or $1,000 and
owed nothing, but could not recall ex-
actly what was said at that time.
Johnson asked TO introduce as evidence
! some statements sworn to by Weiger on
! May 70, 1892, at the time of his petition in
/ insolvency before Judge Catlin.
bon objected to this evidence, and a
! lengthy argument by both attorneys en-
| sGed. Weiger's counsel claimed, in sub
stance, that the statements made by
| Weiger i'll his insolvency proceedings
were involuntary and given in a civil
| suit, and that no man could be COM
| PEELED 10 render involuntary evidence in
a criminal prosecution-that no man
could be compelled to give testimony
! against himself in a criminal case.
johnson argued that it has always been
! a rule that man giving false testimony
is guilty of perjury; that he is not com
! PEELED to answer certain questions, but
that If he does answer the questions, or
/
miSsjble as evidence.
Holl held that, while in the civil case
the defendant was obliged to answer GER
tain questions, in this case he was not and
should not be compelled to answer
them.
The court acknowledged that he was in
doubt upon the point raised, and would
not give his opinion until he had in
vestigated further.
At this time Deputy County Clerk
Robinson arrived and submitted the
papers in question. Johnson said he
wished to show by them that Weiger was
| indebted $4,000 to Mrs. Sophia Fritz, and
gave his note for that amount and interest
on February /, 1850.
AS this evidence was not admitted,
pending the decision of the court, the
statement was not read in full.
Johnson asked that if this evidence was
not admitted, continuance OF the case
be ordered TO allow him to summon sew
eral other witnesses from San Francisco,
and made an affidavit in regard to the
importance of the testimony which he
wished to produce.
ceeded with, and claimed the right to
have 1t disposed of without further DELAY,
Johnson insisted on being allowed time
to produce witnesses from San Francisco,
giving the names of Henry Ash and
samuel RoSenhelm, attorneys, to whom
| Weiger is alleged to have made state
ments regarding his finances
After considerable arguing the case was
continued to Saturday afternoon at l:30
o'clock, and the court adjourned.