The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-04-16
GRAND JURY DISCHARGED.
Foreman lie Count Makes q
Lengthy Defense.
The Eleven Majority State Their Side Of the
Case, But the Eight Stand Firm.
Judge Troutt's Benediction.

y
noon word was passed from the juryroom
to Presiding Judge Trout that they were
ready to meet him in court.
The answer was returned that the Judge
was ready to hear from them at their pleas
ure and they at once filed into court.
FOREMAN LIE COUNTS EXPLANATION.
In response to the Judges inquiry if they
had any further report they desired TO make
Foreman Joseph lie Count arose and read
from a type written document as follow:
To the Hon. J. NJ Trout Presiding Judge,
Superior Cotut, City and County Of San Fran
cisco: Before a decision Is rendered upon the
petition OF The eight members OF The Grand Jury
Ia be discharged. aud While am still juror and
officer of The court and entitled TO be heard l
desire 10 eXoueTate myself and my fellow Jurors
from tie serious charge contained In the petition
flied IN this court on the 18th day of April by a
minority OF this Grand Jury.
First let me say that when was made the
presiding officer OF this body considered IL 10
be my duty 10 thoroughly fami!iIfize myself
with the law governing The rights and duties OF
grand jurors.
From the knowledge thus obtained. and In
obedience 10 the charge made 10 US by your
Honor AT the lime Of our IMPEACHMENT, L have
been guided and actuated In all my movements;
and in making This statement / justly feel that
lean include all Inc jurors against whom charges
have been made by tie said petitioners.
Section 92l Of lie Penal [ ode provides: "The
Grand jury ought TO ind an Indictment when all
The evidence before them. taken together II un-
explained or nncODtradicied. would, in their
u y
Now. as interpret this section. and as have
had IL intet preted for me by the legal adviser of
lie Grand jury, tie Grand Jury must not find
al Indictment against an individual accused uE-
less II Is believed from The evidence that has
bees addueed that conviction would be war
TaEIed by trial jury.
Without disclosing anything that took place In
the Grand Jury room, under this construction OF
tie law and the charge of your Honor, L con-
cludCd thai l would not be acting under my
OATH the law or The charge Of the court, II
should vote for an iDdetment where could not
see in the evidence brought befoe US sufficient
10 warrant my belief that conviction could be
obtained upon a trial OF tie accused. To vote
for an Indictment under such circumstances
would be putting The city and county 10 an IN.
necessary expense Without accomplishing the
enc sought.
Thrse are the principles by which I was gov
erDed IN all my actions, aud l nlmy believe
that the same spirit controlled all my Ielisw-
jurors against whom charges have been made
by minority OF this bOcy.
believe what / have said is sufficient on tie
subject.
Ii your Honor conclude to dissolve this Grand
jury II Is proper 10 state Thar, under the clFcun
stances, no report has been prepared and that a
discharge Will take place without this usual
nnallIy.
ABOUT THE INDICTMENTS.
Mr.. LIE Count then turned his attention to
himself and devoted the remainder Of the
long document 10 an explanation of the
facts and circumstances in the connection
with the indictments found against him
some nine or ten Years ago. The charge Is
that lie Count Bros. presented bills to the
city for supplies never furnished, and the
Grand Jury of 1883 so finding, presented an
indictment against that firm.
The facts are, he explained. that in his
absence his chief salesman, o. b. Culver,
entered into an arrangement with an old
customer named A. kierski, by which the
Registrars office was to be supplied with
stationery through him (kierSkij, the city to
be charged retail rates and Kierski to be
charged only wholesale rates, lie therefore
TO receive the difference as his own profits
This was done simply TO aid and beirieDd
kieTski. Ii did not cost the city cent
more and the commission cane out of the
finn Of lie Count Bros.
Mr.. lie Count also filed an affidavit by o.
b. Culver, made two years ago, setting forth
the same facts under oath.
MR.. LANDERs TALKS.
When Mr.. LIE Count Lad finished speak
ing John Landers. one Of the IL not In
cluded in the petition made last Tuesday,
addressed the court and made the following
statement:
SAN Francisco, April IA 1892
To the HONORABLE Judge Trout: The under
Agntd, portion OF the Grand jury OF the City
and County Of San Francisco, prompted by de-
sire 10 place before the curt and the commun-
hy certain facts connected with proceedings OF
the jury, respectfully state ituat harmony and
good temper have CHARACTER Zrd all their pro.
ceedings, except In one solitary case. That in
that case good deal OF feeling was displayed in
The discussion at the time final action was taken
by the jury; that oEe member OF the minority OF
"a
second Time and lnteruptiDg others while max
ing TemGI Ks contrary 10 the views OF said one
tnryman; that one OF the rules for The regulation
Of discussion provided that no jurymau should
speak twice 10 any question until all others who
desired had spoken; that The juryman who in
sisted upon sTeakng twice 10. violation of bis
own rule WAS called 10 order and required to de-
sisf. which SEEM d 10 give great Offense.
The undersigned further state that at the ses.
sion OF the jury heretofore alluded TO it was
charged that The undersigned. OF some portion
OF them, had caucused together VIII The object
OF uniting TO ignore auy indictment In the case
above spoken Of. That such charge had not The
sembiance Of truth. However, one OF those act
Ing with the minority there admitted that he
As heretofore stated, there has been substan-
tai harmony In tie jury except as above briefly
We do not make this statement because we
have any desire 10 continue TO serve on this
Grand Jury, but III tie interest OF truth and 10
yindieate ourselves from the aspersions sought
TO De east upon US. We do not recognize the
Tight OF minority" 10 control our eonsclences
nor oil tie pTopTety OF q minority breaking
up Grand Jury because the majority differs in
opinion In single case.
On motion OF one Of the more active OF the
hlborlty," The investigation OF one case, and
he Que involving more interest In this COM
mnnity than any other, postponed ffom
lime 10 lime until tile 29tb OF April for further
examination. and in The meantime petition for
the court.
We have not interposed any obstacle to the full
and thorough investigation OF any case TO which
The attention OF the jury has been called; Oh the
contrary, we have favored the widest latitude for
thorough search alter criminal of nses.
we are residents and propeTty-holders of San
francisco, interested In good order and obedl-
eDee TO the laws. We think our individual status
hefe 1nstlnes us IN making this statement In our
own behalf.
We further state that some OF our members de.
clned 10 vote IN cases where they were not pres.
ent at The time some one or more OF he Witnesses
we're examined. Whether this is good practice
ID law OF not we do not know, but we DO know
mat II Is IN good morals and decency
IN conclusion, ana In view OF the situation, we
pray mat your Honor will consider our appIca.
ton Tor discharge.
JOHN LANDERs,
COLUMBUS WAREHOUSE,
H. DUTARD
ABNER DoBLE,
7. q. WILMINGTON
JOHN A. HAMMERsMTTH
u. V. b. HENARIE,
Q. r. WILEY,
sSsps on 4pes E ,e Lett for the Eastern
signature was not obtained 10 this paper.
ONE OF THE EIGHT.
MIR. Landers had resumed his seat and
she Judge was about TO speak when Henry
L. Davis, one of the eight, arose quickly and
called out. Your Honor" He then read
the following few lines:
In view OF the fact that certain members OF the
present Grand Jury convened by you (Which
have made a certain statement to the coiirt
desire to state Oh the part OF the minority towit
the eight petitioners OF last Tuesday. that our
ohN Jul cVuSiuoiouS dic CItdTly ana COM
pietey set torth In our petition and we have
moth Ing more TO say. but respectfully await the
action OF your honorable court.
To make sure that all had sroken who de-
sired the Judge waited few seconds, finally
SsKeo II there was any other report that the
erand Jury wished te present
FOREMAN LIE Count replied that in view Of
the TACT that three separate petitions had
peen made. representing the entire Jury. ana
al asking thar they be discharged, he ear
nestly hoped the Judge would weld to their
wishes. 1t had been plainly enough shawn
that no good could come of their dellberat-
Ing any longer.
JUDGE TRorrT-Tsc nrcre,ox,