The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-05-26
THE SCALPERS' BILL.
Yesterdays Proceedings in the
Case Against Bruner.
Four Witnesses Examined-Asgemblyna dc
Calls Testimony-A Sacramento Grand
Juryman on the Stand.

Calls Testimony-A Sacramento Grand
Juryman on the Stand.
-Four witnesses occupied the attention Of
the court yesterday investigating the bribery
charges against Assemblyman Elwood
Bruner Of Sacramento. They were Ad Olph
Oitinger, the ticket-broker and saloon pro-
prietor, Theodore Backman. his oarkeeper,
AsSembyman James q. Mccall of Alameda
and y. 4. LOyeland of Sacramento, late q
member of tie Grand Jury of that county.
Ihr hrst named was called TO complete his
crosS-eXamlnstiOn, the second to show that
Bruner and Ottnger had held conversations,
the third to testify he was go-between
OF the two, and the fourth to show Ottinger
had not mentioned his San Francisco talk
with Bruner to the Sacramento Grand Jury.
A DAY OF WRANGLISG.
Owing to the volume OF technical obiec-
ITEMS raised by counsel on both sides very
little testimony of a conclusive character
was elected from any Of these witnesses.
A large portion Of the day was spent IN
wranglng about the rules OF evidence and
in citing the pelal code and supreme Court
authorities TO uphold the respective cOnten-
tiOns.
At a quarter past o'clock Mr.. Barclay
Henley. who is prosecuting Bruner on be-
half of the CitiZens-Defense Association,
dropped in his seat, put his hand to his
breast and, as pallor suffused his face.
SAID he was too i'll TO continue. The Inter
rupt!on was sudden, and the afternoon be-
ing we'll advanced the further hearing as
postponed until IL O'Clock this morning. ag
oTTINGER CONFUSED.
When the session began Mr. Ottnger took
his seat on the witness-staud. He looked
i'll. white flannel cloth was about his
neck. He gave his testimony in a feel bic
manner, and was frequently confused by
the sharp questioning Of mir Burners at
tOrney, Mr. Beddy. lie repeated much OF
bis testimony given last week, bat added
that be had had two conversations with
Mr.. Bruner there being an interval of
about ilve weeks between each. Money was
mentioned at each, but only at the last did
the defendant mention specific sum. Mr.
Otttnger's memory was very defective in re-
gard 10 the exact dates when these inter
views were had. He was not allowed, on
his redirect examination by Mr.. Henley, TO
testify as to what he had told the Sacra-
mentO Grand Jury.
Theodore Bachman, barkeeper at go San
some street, testified that Mr.. Ottinger was
his employer and that Ottinger was the
proprietor of the saloon az that number.
He remembered two interviews at the
saloon between Ottinger and Bruner, but
was not positive about the dates. Witness
looked sharply at BruuCT when he WAS in
troduced TO him by Ottinger because he had
read about the police scandals in which
Burners name was involved.
AssEArBLYMAN INGALLS, TESTIMONY.
The sensational witness called during the
day was Assemblymau joseph G. Mccall,
whose name has been Extensively coupled
with Burners in the alleged bribery trans
actions. He was called by the prosecution,
but he proved an unwilling witness and Mr..
Reddy succeed IN interpreting at every
question put to him by Mr.. Henley an OBJ
lion, off, 1l,y Oh fnxn
lie was asked if he had ever borne a mes
sage from Mr.. Bruner to O,tinger or any
body in this city about the sea- per5' bill, if
be had ever bad a conversation with Bruner
at the Grand Hotel in when Bruner
asked him to cali on Ottinger; If he
ever called on Ottnger ut the request OF
Mr.. Bruner; If he ever testified in this
county under oath that at the request Of
Bruner he had gone TO Ottlnger To get him
TO settle up with the BOYS, and if he ever
called upon Ottlnger in this city at the re-
quest of MI Bruner 10 talk about the
scalpers' bill. To all these queries the wit
ness stood mute. while Mr.. Reddy and Mt
Henley argued points on the laws Of evil
dence. In each case Mr.. Reddy'S objections
were sustained.
AN ADMISSIBLE QUESTION.
As Judge Coffey'5 rulings were frequently
based on Objectionable form rather than
substance Mr.. Henley tried many ways of
SldpIuA HIS lulGIiDB dAuit tS ~ do " oFCulO
one that was void of legal error Finally he
succeeded in framing the following admis-
s BILE question:
Did you not say and did you not swear
in this city that you got the scaperS' bill
from Stephen Gage or Richard Chute. and
that you gave 1t TO Bruner for introduction
into the Assembly at Tie request OF Mr..
Gage or Mr. Chute?
1t was, however, not without first hearing
strenuous remonstrance from Mr.. Reddy
that Judge COlfey allowed the question.
The answer, Il have no recollection of
any such conversation or Of any such teSti-
mony" was a greVOuS disappointment to
Mr.. Henley, but ii made Mr. Reddy and his
client happy. To all other questions not
objected TO, the witness ans wered that he
had no recollection. He could not rec0l-
lect ever meeting Mr.. Otinger in Sacra-
mento, ever Introducing Ouinger TO Bruner
in Sacramento nor ever having any particu-
lar conversation with the ticket-brOker.
THE PROSECUTION CLOSED.
Mr. Reddy dismissed Mr. Mccall without
a word Of cross-eXaminatlOn.
Judge Coffey Have you ever been a wit
ness before. MI Mccall?
Mr.. McCalI-Only once, Judge, and hope
never shall be again.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
SIR. Reddy and Mr.. uenley-Do you con-
tend for holding Mr.. Bruner on this evil
dence?
MI IltUIt1 kLiSluH anu tNliliu2 HIS eye
gasses)-I PROFESSIONALLY do.
Mr.. Reddy Cunning to the bench)-If your
Honor desires to hear any testimony we will
call our witnesses.
Judge Coffey-It Is not a matter OF desire
with the court. If you have any testimony
you had better submit it, Mr.. Reddy.
Mr.. O. A. LOyeland, the Sacramento
grand iuryman, was thereupOn called. lie
testified that Ottinger was asked by the
Grand Jury whether he ever had any con-
yersalion with Mr.. Bruner in regard to the
scalpers' bill aud that Ottinger had replied
that he did not have any conversation with
Bruner in Sacramento.
GRAND JURY ROOM SECRETS.
Upon his examination Mr. LOyeland
said that Burners brother came to him and
asked him whether he remembered the teS-
timony Of Mr.. OttInger before the Grand
Jury and that he told him TO the best of his
recollection what it was.
+ Mr.. Henley-Did you know he was solicit
ing you 10 commit crime?
Mr.. LOYeland-No, sir
Mr.. Henley was reading the provisions of
the penal code prohibiting grand jurymen
from revealing the sc Tets of the Grand
Jury when Mr.. Reddy interrupt ed him
with the objection that this was not the
place to pursue the witness on criminal
charges.
Judge Coffey-But that is the course you
pursued toward Mr.. Ottinger, Mr.. Reddy.
Witness then said he led Burners brother
TO believe that the testimony before the
Grand Jury was not What he supposed it TO
be, and that he never had any conversation
with the defendant.
1t was at this point that Mr.. Henley sank
into his chair, put his hand on his breast,
and when asked to proceed with the ex-
animation said he felt too i'll to do anything
more. An adjournment was therefore