The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-08-06
JOHN ?. DUNN'S OBJECTIONS.
A Day Of Talking In the Action
to 0ust Assessor Siebe.
Motion to Strike Out Part Of the Answer to
Dunn's Complaint-Judge CARRIER Does
Not Want Politics Dragged In.
One whole day was consumed before

One whole day was consumed before
Judge CARRIER in dry arguments on a motion
to strike out certain parts of the answer to
the complaint filed by John P. Dunn for the
Citizens Defense Association against John
Siebe, Assessor. charging that official with
malfeasance in Office, and asking the court
to remove him. The specific charges
against Siebe it will be remembered are
that he changed assessments after the roll
had been turned over to the Supervisors
and equalized.
Mr. Siebe, it will also be remembered,
had waived demurrer, filed his answer and
instructed his lawyers to proceed with the
hearing OF the case Old its merits. Not so
with the complainant when he came into
court yesterday. Mr.. w. Ii. Beatty opened
Proceedings by moving TO strike out that
portion of the answer which refers to
Dunn's conduct while Auditor. The an
Swer alleges that while Auditor in 1SS0-S1
be permitted similar corrections to be made
in the assesSment-rOll. This If was claimed
was no defense and Irrelevant TO the issue.
Mr. Beatty also wanted The letter from
Supervisor Ebert to City and County Attor-
ney burst struck out, as 1t also had no effect
as defense.
w II. L. Barnes. in behalf of Mr.. Siebe,
said that II the complaint had not charged
Siebe with willful corruption this matter
concerning Dunn's official action would not
have been inserted. He was willing 10
strike that out if the complaint should be
amended.
Neither Mr. w. ". Foote nor Mr.. Beatty
would do this. and then long argument
followed, which was continued all day, and,
In fact. never was concluded.
Mr.. Beatty cOntended on the merits Of
the case that there is no law that author
ICES the Assessor to alter the roll after 1t
has passed through the hands of the Board
of Equalization. He maintained that when
TIE Assessor made alterations he was guilty
of malfeasance, and should be removed.
Mr.. Barnes in turn attacked the anlmus
of the complaint explained the corrections
IN the assess ment-Toll by and with the adj
vice and consent OF the City and County
Attorney, and declared that there is no justi-
| hcatlon Tor charging that Sebe has been
guilty OF wlllful and corrupt misconduct IN
Office The charges Of willful corruption
are necessary TO give the complaint stand
ing IN court, and from this Mr.. Barnes en-
tered upon a discussion of the intent, but
Mir. Beatty for the other side readily adj
mitted that there had been no desire TO
charge Siebe with criminal intent, though it
might be implied from his conduct.
Mr.. Barnes continued TO resist the motion
to strike out and cOntended that IL the pros
eeution did not Intend to stand by its charge
of wilful and corrupt intent the whole pro-
| ceeding fails to the ground.
Mr.. Alderman for the defendant.and Mr.
toote Tor the plalntln followed each other,
| the frst-named gentleman intimating that
! the proceedings against Sebe were initiated
| by the Citizens Committee for political
| effect. This WAS resented by FOote. who
| said there was nothing in the pleadings
| about politics or the Citizens Committee.
Judge CARRIER also remarked that be did
| not propose to allow any political issue to
| be made in the case. He was considering
| the matter MS a Judicial proceeding only.
| He wanted no more remarks about politics.
Mr.. FoOte was talking on the question Of
intent when Judge CARRIER brought the mat
ter to a close. deciding the motion to strike
| out the Objectionable averments and an
| nOuncing that u on the trial on Monday on
the merits OF the case and the agreed state
ment Of the facts the question of intent can
readily be passed on. This was apparently
| satisfactory TO all concerned