The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-05-29
A NOVEL Law POINT.
Mr. Patrick neddy Raises One in
the EIWoOd Bruner Case.
Sc Contends That Testimony in Rebuttal Is
Unlawful in Preliminary Proceeding.
An Ingenious Argument.

A novel legal contention vas raised by
Mr.. Patrick Reddy yesterday. 1t was in
the case Of the people versus ElW00d Bru-
ner. Mr.. Reddy, an attorney for the de-
PENDANT, claimed that Justice Of the Peace
has no power to hear evidence offered in
rebuttal by the prosecution. An argument
lasting an hour and half was built on this
proposition. The argument was so ingenius
as TO attract much attention ana cause a
diligenJ search Of the codes and law text
books by Judge Coffey and the advocates.
MR.. REDDY's OPPORTUNITY.
A. i. Henderson Of the Examiner having
testified TO the date of the publication Of the
police scandal and there being no more wit
neSses for the defendant the question arose
of an adjournment to Monday to hear the
arguments. Mr.. MscShaTry. who has taken
Mr Heniey's place as PROSECUTOR, announced
that he intended 10 call some witnesses
to give Tebulting testimony This was Mr.
Reddy's opportunity. He claimed that a
preliminary heating was a special proceed
ing. a committing magistrate had no more
power than the code gave bin. The prose
CutiOn were bound 10 offer all the testimony
they Lad before the defense introduced its
testimony. They were bound to complete
their proof In the first instance. He did not
care what the practice had been. The Drac-
tlce could not control the statutes There
was no legal authority for allowing testi-
mony in Tebuttal in a preliminary proceed
ing
Sir. MacSherly argued that the whole
object Of preliminary examination would
be defeated II Mr. Reddy had correctly
stated the law.
Judge Cotfey suggested as there must be
proofs, recourse must be had TO the rules Of
evidence. The Code or Civil Procedure
contained the laws OF eYidenc for this State.
A FRIEND OF THE COURT.
At this juncture on elderly gentleman
rose from bis seat and coming forward
asked permission 10 be heard II was Mr..
G. ". Chamberlain. Judge COffey, though
interrupted by him, offered DO objection,
but couTteOusly greeted him and asked Mr..
ReddY If he had any objection. Certainly
not" said the defendants lawyer, as he
made loom fol Mr. Chamberlain and took
up position with his back TO the wall.
MI. Cham OerlaIu'S views were IN acCOT d
with Nh Reddy's. lie suggested that the
Issue before the court was not an issue of
the trial Of guilt but an issue of probable
caAse. The distinction was a broad one
and should be maintained. The defendant
is permitted 10 remove the effect of the evil
dence Of the prosecution upon the question
not Of guilt but Of probable cause for a trial,
and when that has been done there is an end
to the preliminary proceedings.
JUDGE COFFEY's RULING.
Judge Coffey said the laws Of evidence
required a full inquiry into the truths Of the
matters at issue, and though the argument
had been an able one he was not convinced
that the prosecution were denied the right
to offer rebutting testimony.
Nr. MacSherTy said he would produce
witnesses who would testify that Mr..
Bruner was in San Francisco on many Of
the days that the defense claimed he was in
Sacramento.
After some position from AIr Reddy,
who desired the prosecution to introduce lis
witnesses at once, Judge Coffey said he
would hold court Oh Monday, when the
hearing would De resumed at 10 o'clock