The morning call., 1895-01-17
STERNBERG ON TRIAL.
The Principal Witness in
the Case.
DAVID NEWMAN'S RESIDENCE.
1t Was on DeyiSaderO Street When
He Registered.
LUST RECEIVED TWENTY DOLLARS
Sternberg Told His Friends to Leave
Town as SubpenaeS We're Out
for ali Of Them.

The Sternberg case opened in Judge
Wallace's court yesterday morning as soon
as the two remaining jurors necessary to
complete the jury were secured. Samuel
Foster and John III. Gilmour were chosen
without much difficulty, and then David
Newman, one of the principal witnesses for
the prosecution, was called to the stand.
Newman was one of the obliging voters
with whom Sternberg is said to have stuffed
the Baldwin Hotel in the interest of j. II.
Mahoney, who was during the last cam
paign running for the State Senate from
the Twenty-fourth District According to
his story Newman, about three months
before the election, agreed to register from
the Baldwin Hotel from a certain room,
the number of which and the floor
where it was located being subsequently
given to him by Sternberg on October
last. In agreeing to register from the
BALDWIN, Newman claims he told Stern
berg that he lived at 1911 Devisadero
street. but Sternberg said that would be all
right, so long as he did not register twice.
During the conversation on October 5, in
addition to himself and Sternberg, there
was present another man named Samuel
Lust. Lust also received bit of paper
with the number and floor OF the room he
was to register from upon it, and then
Sternberg took them out to the City Hall,
where they registered from the Baldwin
Hotel.
On the Friday following the election
Newman says he and Lust met Sternberg
in Eat Jack" OConnor's saloon, on the
corner of Stockton and Geary streets. At
this time Adolph Gutman, another
''lodger" at the Baldwin, was present, and
there Sternberg told them they must
Loo hQ nit 1h,a e.
them, and if they were caught and made to
testify he would be cinched. Sternberg
then, according to the testimony, gave
Lust $40 to divide among the three, and
then he repeated his request that they go
away and stay as long as possible.
Mr.. Cross, counsel for Sternberg, con-
Quoted the cross-examination for the de-
Tense, and he managed to make the wit
ness rather uncomfortable before he was
through.
Newman admitted he had no occupation
unless the business of professional gam
bier could be called one. He admitted
that he knew he was swearing falsely
when he swore to the affidavits OF
registration, but he maintained he had
and Sternberg had hung around cigar
stores, had frequented disreputable resorts
and had led life of ease and infamy to-
gether, and when he saw chance to do
him favor he did not hesitate too long
over it. 1t was evident the great
moral evil in false registration and
illegal registration lay, in his opinion, in
the danger of being found out
During the afternoon session Of the court
Samuel Lust of 1907 Golden Gate avenue
and Adolph Gutman of 172 Clara street,
both late of the Baldwin, were called to
the stand and examined. Lust's testimony
was mostly in confederation of the evil
dence given by Newman. The transaction
made with him was exactly similar to the
one with Newman and the two stories
were about identical Mr.. Lust took as
much pride in his citizenship as did his
friend Newman and he was willing to sell
his right to vote and to perjure himself for
just as small consideration.
Adolph Gutman was called for the pur-
pose of proving the statements of Newman
regarding the transaction in Fat Jack
O'Connor's saloon. He was not questioned
closely as to his experience in establishing
residences and his examination consumed
but short time.
The case will go on again to-day, when
Brush Hardenbergh, clerk of the Baldwin
Hotel, will be called on for what he knows
of the non-residence OF the trio at his
house. The prosecution will then probably
close.
The law under which Newman, Lust, Gut
man and others of their kind are allowed
to testify and still preserve immunity from
arrest is part of the purity of election laws
recently passed. The section which covers
the case provides that any person who has
at the solicitation of another voted or reg
istered falsely is a competent witness
against bis partner in the crime, and vice
versa. 1t further provides that nothing
they say on the stand and in evidence can
be used against them in a subsequent pros
ecution, provision which amounts to al
lowing them to go free if they will tell the
truth. This provision has removed the
greatest barrier to the operation of the old
law, when both parties are liable, and
makes prosecutions of the kind now going
on possible