The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-10-11
BRUuHR At TEE GRAND.
The Missing Register Leaves
Produced.
TRAINER SMITH IN COURT.
de Was In 0ttinger's Back Room and Over
heard the Famous Talk With
the Woman.

The first witness called In the Bruner
prioery case yesterday was Willard Gard
ner, member of the late Sacramento Grand
jury. He distinctly testified that Ottinger
swore In Sacramento that he never had a
conversation with Bruner in San Francisco
about the scalpers' bill. This testimony was
corroborated by II. Il. Crouch, another
member of the Sacramento Grand Jury.
orouch also swore that Ottinger told him In
MS own saloon that Bruner was not guilty.
put Innocent, and that before the matter
was over he would show himself good
friend to him.
Attorney Foote tried to shake the witness
III every possible way
Don't you know that Ottinger was an
unwilling witness ?" asked he.
But keddy was at once up with an oblec-
ton.
Then Emil Heinrichs, another member.
VWestlheu In the same stran-namely, tnat
oiinger swOre he had never had CONVEX
oaeioh In this city about money or the
scaIpers bill. He was also present at the
In1terVlew when Ottinger told Crouch That
Druher was innocent.
attorney Reddy next called the defendant
70 me stand. He testified that he was
porn III GAINESVILLE, Ohio. twenty-eightyears
ago that he was a married man with four
chlIaren. He told how he first met Ottiuger
at MS desk on the floor of the Assembly,
WHen ne stated that he could get large
peuuon protesting against the passage OF
ehe ocalpers' bill. Bruner told him he
"ouIo nave chance at the proper time.
The witness then denied that he had ever
talked with or seen Ottinger in Sacramento
except at the time mentioned, ana never
conyersed with him in San Francisco until
ni'er me adjournment OF the Legislature.
Iaft Oh The conversation took place III OF
tngers ticket broking office and part in the
saloon Ottinger told him all about his
business, and showed him the saloon and
cardroom. They were not In that room
apoVe half minute. and he was certain
tnat the door was never even closed. much
less HsS locked, there being no occasion tor II.
He never had any conversation with Ot-
tinger regarding the payment of money at
any time
Bruner went on to testify that he was
present at every rollcall of the Legislature;
that ne was not in San Frapcisco on Feb
Iuary 70. 1891, as alleged by the prosecu-
tlon. lie repeated that he had never seen
ottinger between the first interview In the
Assembly until after the Legislature had
ADJOURNED. He concluded his direct testi.
mony by giving an account of his where.
abouts every day from February % until
AFTER the Legislature adjourned.
The court then adjourned until the after
noon, when Attorney Foote commenced the
cr0ss-examInatlon OF the defendant. Fo0te
started In by endeayoring to get Bruner to
admit that he had changed his line OF de-
Tense since the case opened.
is 1t not fact" queried Foote, that
you intended to prove an abb on the days
sworn to by Ottinger upon which the alleged
onenSe was committed and that now you
have taken another liner"
DIR. Reddy objected. but Bruner denied
positively that his defense had been varied
one jOt or title.
After getting Bruner to admit that he
stayed at the Grand Hotel Foote asked if he
had not authorized the leaves of the hotel
register for the days when he registered TO
be cut out. Bruner replled that the attor-
ney was the first TO give him the lnforma-
ton If that were so.
Then Foote tried TO show that BIuner or
his friend had caused the pages Of the regis
ter to be cut out and destroyed in order 10
would not admit this he produced the
leaves Of the register cut out bearing the
defendants signature.
Bruner admitted that he signed these
pages and they were put in evidence.
F0ote shOwered questions like hail against
the defendant, but they were mostly ruled
out. Then he finally exclaimed, That's
all"
A attorney Reddy asked Bruner whether
IRE a, ah had ,, not been left ia his hands en-
ali 90 time" oi"'eiS ana
see rest" said Attorney Reddy, some
wftslf 10 the surprise of the spectators.
The prosecution then called Albert Smith
In rebuttal, who testified that he listened TO
the conversation Ottinger had with Mrs.
Heath and another woman In his saloon
about the Bruner case. The witness list
ened in the back room at Ottinger's request.
and swore that one of the women said to
Ottlnger that ali he had told her of the case
was that "Rruner waa OUiy the small ISL in
the fry, and should be let go"
Judge Coffey then identified Ottinger's
original deposition. which was taken be-
fore him. Il was brought out that Ottnger
was not positive about the date of March /,
1891, inserted in the affidavit, and on being