The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-11-12

made, however, before most sensational
affidavit had been filed on behalf of Marvin
/. Freeman by John l.. Boone, his attor-
ney. As the result of the ruling there
promises to be a dramatic scene, similar to
the sentencing OF Grand Juror Summer
hayes, before Judge McKenna to-day, for
1t is understood that the recalcitTant wit
ness Will remain obdurate and refuse to
testify. Should he do so he will be liable
to punishm ent for contempt of court. AS
a fine under the circumstances would have
little effect Imprisonment would be the
portion of the witness. Then would IN
doubtedly come habeas corpus proceed
ings in the United States Circuit Court OF
Appeals.
This result will not be at all a surprise
to the witness or those directly connected
with the case, for the witness himself
stated few days ago, as published in THE
CALL. that he was in q dilemma from
which there appeared no possibility of ex-
Treating himself without serious results.
In April, 1895, he made a deposition in
Chicago relative to a certain invention for
the distribution of electricity, which was
in favor of his brother, Walter K. Free
man, the plaintiff in the interference case
against the Westinghouse Company. Sub
sequently, he claims, he was induced to
come to this City by reason of threats and
offers OF money to make a deposition in
favor of the defendant company. But
alter his arrival here he met his brother
Walter K, and then decided to stand by
his first deposition, which he now insists
is the truth. He further claims that since
his last change of heart became known to
defendants counsel he has been threatened
with death or arrest for perjury if he did
not testify in favor of the defendant.
These threats, he asserts. were made by
another of his brothers, Warren P. Free
man, acting as an agent of the Westing-
house people. Should he, on the other
hand, testify in favor of the Westinghouse
people he would, he alleges. be actually
committing perjury and lay himself open
to arrest and punishment for that offense
by Walter K.
Under these circumstances he sought
advice of counsel and is determined not to
testify at all, but even this course is big
with promise OF placing him behind prison
bars.
In the matter heard before Judge Nc
Kenna yesterday, the Westinghouse Com
pany was represented by an additional
legal defender in the person of Joseph
Campbell of the law firm of Reddy. Camp
bell & Nelson of this City. The other
counsel for the defense are H. L. Mackaye
of New York and Horace Platt of this
City. The counsel for plaintiff, Walter X.
Freeman. is j. B. Church of Washington,
and the witness, Marvin l.. Freeman, was
represented by John L. Boone.
Horace Plat opened the proceedings
by presenting petition recting the Incl
dents which led to the submission to Judge
McKenna of the question at lssue-whether
or not witness could be compelled to an
swar the question of defendants counsel
in the proceedings before Commissioner
Heacock. Ghe petition concluded as fol-
lows:
Wherefore petitioner prays that writ of
attachment issue herein compelling said wit
ness to appear in this court, and upon his said
appearance this court make an order ordering
said witness 10 answer said question, or be
punished for contempt of court for his dis
obedience of said order, and that upon said
diSobedience writ OF attachment issue TO
bring said witness before this court % receive
such punishment as this court may direct.
Two points were raised by Attorney
Boone on Saturday as to why witness
should not be compelled 10 testify. One
was that he had already at Chicago in
April, 1895, covered the ground on which
the defendant proposed 10 examine and
that he could not again be examined there
on without the consent OF the court, and
the other was that having been brought
within the jurisdiction OF this district by
means of threats and offers of money he
was not properly within the jurisdiction of
the court.
Attorney Boone argued briefly on the
first point, and Judge McKenna cut him
short by stating that the matter was too
clear to him to require any argument and
summary decided that the witness could |
be again examined on the matters he had |
already testified to, and that the Commits |