The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-18
DENIES THE ALLEGATION,
Juror RulofSon Declares Mrs
John Martins Charges
to Be False.
Against the Lady or Against
the Jury.

Alfred G. Rulofson, foreman of the jury
in the recent Martin will contest, yester-
day made the following statement regard
ing charges published in the daily press
on the authority of Mrs. John Martin,
through her attorney j. c. Bates:
1t is stated that Mr.. Patrick Cody refused to
act as foreman of the jury. That Is false. He
was nominated and elected foreman. On the
first ballot ten jurors pronounced the will a
forgery. They wrote out the verdict and de-
manded that the foreman sign it. This he re-
fused to do, as he did not concur in it, and a
deadlock ensued. He was then asked to re-
sign as foreman, which he did. 1 was elected
foreman in his place and ordered another bal
lot. The result was the same as al first, and
Immediately signed the verdict and brought
1t is charged by Mrs. John Martin, through
her attorney, j. c. Bates, that money WAS used
with the ten jurors, and all are accused of hav-
ing accepted brides. This is false in every par
ticular, so far as know and believe.
1t is particularly charged that Arthur
Rodgers called at my house on the evening of
the last day of the trial, and then and there
bribed me with large amount of gold coin
also that made statement to that effect to
Mr.. Bates.
The charge and statement are unuualifiedly
false. / never exchanged a word with Mr.
Rodgers in my life till to-day. 1 then called
on him to deny that ever made any statement
to the effect that he or any one else connected
with the case had called on me or attempted to
influence me in any manner.
The first knowledge had of anything of the
kind was when l received q letter from Mr.
Bates as follows:
Law OFFICE OF ]. c. Bates )
434 CALIFORNIA STREET.
SAN FRANCISCO, MAY 30, 1895. }
n. G. R,Iofson Sr., EsQ.-MY DEAR SIR: Some
new deyelopme nts OF what took place during the
trial of the Henry Martin will case about tt
take place. and Iwould like to see you before thu
matter is made public. Yours respectfully,
]. c. BATES.
To that letter replied by mail that owing
to press of business was unable to call OF
him, that the matter was of no interest to me
and that so far as was concerned nothing haG
transpired which might not be given the
utmost publicity. To this letter Mr.. Bate
! made no reply.
It is also untrue that Mr.. E. B. Pond has an,
| OF ever had any connection or does any bust
ness with the firm of Baker 4 Hamilton, witt
which am associated.
1t is also untrue that Henry Barman, one o
| the ten accused jurors, is now or ever was IL
| the employ of Baker & Hamilton
The jury was Influenced solely by the evi
dence in the case, and Notwithstanding thu
| fact that Grove l.. Johnson had stated that il
| the District Attorney if he did his duty, woult
| be obliged to proceed against Mrs. John MartiI
| for forgery we reached our decision. Thi
phase OF the case was discussed at length II
the jury room. We came to the conclusion
| that Mrs. John Martin had merited such pros
| ecution and rendered verdict accordingly.
! The matter has also been recently called K
| await his action with considerable interest.
wrote him to-day stating that in any case
! crime had been committed and asking him t.
/ proceed against the guilty party. whether
was Mrs. John Martin or the jurymen.
1 A. G. RuLoFsoN.