The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-12
The PauISelI Lone Juror Is
Charged With Contempt
and Perjury.
DECLARED TO BE A BOOSTER
Yet He Had Sworn That He Knew
Nothing About Gambling
Places.

him-contempt and perjury-and should
he succeed in escaping one he Will still
stand in danger of the other.
His dilemma was the result of contempt
proceedings in Judge Edward A. Belcher's
court yesterday He had been cited to
show cause why he should not be punished
for having refused to acquiese IN the YER
dict OF his eleven co-jurors OF guilt" on
the ground that he was priudiced against
the court, as per an affidavit of his brother
jurors. The respondent was represented
by Attorneys GuiIfoyle and Haskell, while
Assistant District Attorney Peixotto ap-
peared for the County.
After Peixotto had stated that the pro-
ceedings were in consequence of charges
brought by Meyers fellow-iurors, and
after the respondents attorneys had failed
to obtain continuance or to have formal
demurrer sustained, Judge Belcher st ated
that there was no que stion as to the law IN
the matter. The punishment OF contempt
was right inherent in the court should
the facts be shown as alleged. This would
be decided on testimony.
Assistant District Attorney Peixotto
then read his affidavit declaring that Mey-
er had refused to vote guilty" in the
Paulsell case because he had been reprl-
manded in the Worthington case. He in
troduced the court records showing this
reprimand, and also Meyers response to
questions touching his qualifications to
serve as juror, and particularly called
attention to the question 'Do you know
the gambling place of Ross, Carroll & Web
ber?" Meyer had then answered mo, sir,
/ have nothing to do with such places"
This answer formed the ground of subse-
quent charges of perjury.
Tolo,, Ill - s h. h.
Pauisell case, testified that after several
ballots Meyer had stood out against his CO.
jurors on the ground that he was preju-
diced against the court, having been rep
rimanded by the court in former trial.
He identified the charge to that effect
signed by himself and brother jurors and
filed with the court. Meyer had after
question of Paulsell having established an
alibi. The jurors had not threatened. in
suited or attempted to force Meyer to vote
for conviction, although he might have
said to the court after the jury had been
called from the jury-room that unless
deputy sheriff were sent to accompany
them Meyer might be thrown out of the
window. 1t was said in semi-jocular
way. The jury did not want to be locked
up over night on a simple matter.
&. W. SHELTON, another juror, corrobo-
rated his predecessor. Attorney Guilfoyle
attempted to show that Meyer had said:
Here's pretty how dye do! Here am l
insulted by the jury, and | was lnsulted by
the court in former case, and | ought to
be preiudiced against the court, and l will
not change my vote if / am kept out three
months, - but the witness could not recol-
lect this version. The written statement
admitted as part of the res gest9 consti-
tuted Meyers attitude as far as he remem-
bered.
Then the Assistant District Attorney
created sensation by placing some gam
blers on the stand. The first was Richard
]. Creighton, known as "Dick" Creighton,
who attained fame in connection with the
Morrow bribery case.
Dick Creighton testified that he had
known Meyer as an habitue of gambling
places. He received from 81 to 81 night
for filling up gap in the play, and was
professionally known as booster"
"What is that?" asked the court.
ga booster is a man put in to play and
help things along" replied the witness.
"Then [ understand that the respondent
Meyer was a Naturalization in gam
bling games?" queried the court.
Not In gambling games" responded
Creighton, "in poker"
isn't that gambling game?" inno-
Gently asked the court.
''No; poker is a game of skill" replied
the, witness, promptly, and the court
looked QaZed Tor moment
August Schrader of the Thalia "club-
room' testified that he knew Meyer as
having been frequenter of the place. He
knew his son, Barney. but could not say
whether he conducted similar game
w. II. Weller, connected with other
Market-street "clubrooms," knew Never
and his son Barney, who conducted a
poker game. He had seen Meyer playing
poker on the previous evening at the
Thalia.
Then Assistant District Attorney Peix-
otto sprung his surprise. He said in the
opening statement of his argument that,
while he felt that the contempt charge had
been proved, there was still more serious
charge to be preferred against Meyer. This
was perjury. Meyer had gone out of his
way to state in his response to query as
to his qualifications as a juror that he
knew nothing about gambling places. This
was his statement under oath. Now the
testimony had proved that he was pro-
fessionai gambler. The case which he
was called to try was essentially gam
bling case, and his answer had obviously
misled the court and its officers. Had his
gambling connection been known he
would assuredly have been challenged by
one side or the other. Such false state
ment, in the face of uncontradicted testi-
mony, constituted perjury, and he would
ask the court to hold the respondent for
CldI CI1IuS.
Mr.. Peixotto then addressed himself to
argument on the question of contempt. He
showed that the court was not only justi-
fled In censuring the jury in the Worthing-
ton trial in not having brought in verdict
according to the construction of the law
and the evidence, but that it was its plain
duty to do SO. He argued that the declara-
ton OF Meyer, as vouched for by his fell
low jurors, to the effect that he was pre-
JUDGED against the court, constituted alb
solute contempt. Whether Meyer had
saved himself by subsequently alleging
reasonable doubt, would be matter for the
court to decide.
Attorney Guilfoyle argued that the court
could not take official cogniZance of any
thing that passed in the jury-room except
under exceptional circumstances. The
question was what constitutes contempt,
and he maintained that it was defined so
as to permit his opening statement, by the
late California Supreme Court Justice
Sharpstein
Finally Judge Belcher took the contempt
charge under advisement and said that in
view of the appearance of probable cause
In the perjury charge he ordered Julius
Meyer into the custody of the Sheriff to
appear on Saturday morning at 10 clock,
n ChNrxv L l. j