The record-union., 1892-01-30
INGALLS, MEMORY.
He Denies that 1t was Defective and
Makes an Explanation.
The Bruner Case Laid at Rest-Major
Gett's New Definition of Refusal
Mccall Purged of Contempt.

At the opening of Judge Catlin's court
yesterday morning J. G. Mccall, amen
Der of the Assembly from Alameda
County, appeared faultlessly dressed. On
the lapel of his coat rested bunch of
fresh violets, and he looked the picture of
contentment and happiness. His pres
ence was not caused as a member of the
Legislature bent on investigating the
coyote industry" nor other legislative
irregularities, but in
OBEDIENCE TO A CITATION
Issued on Tuesday last out of the Superior
Court of this county, on an affidavit
sworn to by John Stevens. foreman of the
Grand Jury. In hisafIidavit Mr. Stevens
set forth that the Assemblyman was will
fully Withholding information from the
Grand Jury; that when questions were
propounded to him by that body, Mccall
gave but one answer to all of them, and
that answer was: II don't remember"
When the matter was called, Lawyer
Joseph p. Kelly of san Francisco and
Major w. 4. Gett OF this city stated that
they desired to interpose a demurrer to
the affidavit.
GROUNDS OF DEMURRER.
Their. objections were that the affidavit
did not state facts sufficient to constitute a
pubic otfense; that it did not state facts
SuThclent to constitute a contempt of the
court; that the court had no jurisdiction
over the person OF Mccall; that the court
had no jurisdiction over the subject mat
ter contained in the affidavit charging
Mccall with contempt of court; that the
affidavit, upon its face, showed that the
Grand Jury OF Sacramento had no legal
right to PROFOUND to, Mccall the ques-
tIons therein contained, and had no right
to investigate the matter referred TO.
MR.. KELLY TALKS.
Mr.. Kelly briefly stated these grounds
OF demurrer and claimed that no tribu-
nal, board or body Of people could MAIN
tain by any application of the answers
accredited to Mccall, that he was either
guilty Of contempt III refusing to answer
The questions of the Grand Jury, nor was
he giving the jury eVasive answers TO
facts that he was IN possession of, and of
Which they were seeking information.
He cited copiously from elementary
works that the only result the answers
given would have would be that the evil
dence of Mccall might be dlscredited by
the jury in considering his testimony in
It's entirety and applying it to the matter
under investigation.
District Attorney Ryan argued that in
effect the witness had refused to answer
the questions propounded to him.
THE MAJORS DEFINITION.
Major Gett proceeded to close the argu-
ment, and maintained that 81 don't re-
member" was not language which could
be construed into flat refusal 10 answer
for the reason that while the witness might
in his narrative of an occurrence agree
with other witnesses as to facts, yet as to
the particular circumstances he was
interrOgated about by the Grand Jury,
he might not synchroniZe with them.
And, II, Mr.. Gett claimed, the witness
failed to concur in time, or places, or cir
cumStanceS, or other details, about which
he was asked positive questions that
might be answered by "Yes" or NO"
and the jury insisted on the answer be-
ing given, and if the position taken by
them in this proceeding was correct, any
witness who should fail to give direct
ana positive answers to matters in which
he was not sure in his own mind about,
would be guilty of contempt 1t could
not be claimed that Mccall was 'con-
temnor," he said, as he had answered the
questions, and had not either refused to
answer or evaded the questions asked.
JUDGE CATLIN INTERPRETERS.
At this point the Judge stated that he
had carefully listened to the attorney,
and he was satisfied that while all the au-
thorities on the subject of contempt were
to cases where witness had unequivo-
cally refused to answer questions, he was
of the opinion that Mr.. Mccall had, by
failing to remember, in effect refused to
answer, but that he would give counsel
until the afternoon session OF the court to
present any additional authorities.
COMPROMISE.
At the reassembling of court Major
Gett stated that he was called into the
case on short notice, and without an op-
portunity to fully consult with his client,
but after talking the case over at the noon
recess with their client, he and Mr.. Kelly
had discovered that "a misunderstanding
had existed between Mr.. Mccall and the
Grand jury"
Mccall then filed an answer to Stevens
affidavit, which went on to state that he,
the said Mccall, ''had fully and fairly an
swered each and every one of said inter
, rogatOrieS propounded to him, and deny
ing that he withheld or attempted to with
hold any information or facts in his pos
session, about which the Grand Jury
were attempting to investigate; that he
was ready and willing and anxious to
appear before the Grand Jury and an
} swer any questions pertinent to any issue
under investigation by the Grand Jury
to the best of his ability, and give and
/ impart to them any information or any
, facts of any kind of which he had any
knowledge or information"
, The court accepted McCall's PROPOSE
ton and issued an order purging him OF
contempt. District Attorney Ryan ac-
companied Mccall out of the room and
upstairs to the Grand Jury room.
BRUNER'S CASE DISMISSED.
What took place in the Grand Jury
room is not known exactly, but it was
evident that with McCalfs testimony
came the end of the Bruner investiga-
ton.
/ The Grand Jury adjourned when it had
finished with the Alameda Assem- bIyman
md II ant Ion otto =,
ments were heard on the streets to the eff
feet that the jury had taken q vote on the
Bruner matter and had decided to bring
| in no indictment against Bruner. This
vote, it is said, stood seventeen to two.
ADJUSTMENTS
There was a yerY good audience Of the