The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-23
Defendants Will File a Petition
for Rehearing
To-Day.
TO BE NO CRIMINAL ISSUE.
H. M. Levy, Senator Lynch and
Others Furnish a Series Of
Surprises in the Case.


tinues to develop surprises and wreck COM
binations that would at first glance seem
to be perpetual Last week the contro-
versy over the incidents bearing on the
case broke up the friendship of Senator
jeremiah Lynch and III. M. Levy, but to-
day those gentlemen are inseparable again,
and the Ratchet is buried beyond the pos
sibility of resurrection.
The cause of the original separation was
traced to remarks made by Mr.. Levy, who
said that his friend Mr.. Lynch did not buy
1000 shares of stock for the purpose OF
bringing the case before the Grand jury,
but that the stock in question was bought
some months before by Mr.. Lynch, who
was doing little specializing on the YER
dict; that he failed to land, owing to the
fact that the decision was not for So, O00, 900,
the original amount, but was for $3.50, 900
instead. Mr.. Levy said that such a drop
from the amount sued for would make Mr..
Lynch feel very bad, and the result was
Mr.. Lynch waxed wroth and proceeded to
tell Mr.. Levy to go to various places and
never show his face again. 1t looked for a
time that the two friends would meet each
other on the street and have trouble, but
Tuesday night. through the efforts of a
friend, Mr.. Lynch and Mr.. Levy were
brought together, and the latter's home
was made the scene of reconciliation,
where the former remained all night and
smoked the cigariof peace.
The next surprise was developed yester-
day when it was learned that Plaintiff
Fox, through his attorney, had concluded
that it was out of the question to push the
criminal end of the case, as it was barred
from the courts by the statute of limita-
ton, which provides that suit shall be
begun within three years after the COM
mission of fraud, and not three years after
the discovery of it. The latter under
standing of the law prevailed before 1891,
when it was amended and changed as first
stated. Mr.. Baggett said yesterday:
''There is no likelihood OF criminal pro.
ceedings ever being brought, as the fraud
was committed over five years ago. We
are satisfied on that point and the statute
of Limitation is clear. There is another
thing we will push, however, and it is the
damage suit. We have already got a
Judgment for $3.50, 900, but that IS for
profits on the milling, and now we want to
get judgment for $4,000, the amount we
claim as damage to the stockholders of the
corporation. On this particular point the
Supreme Court informed US that they
could not render q decision, as the testi-
mony on that point was not sufficient to
Justify it. We will carry this issue back
to the lower court, add more testimony
and then send it up to the Supreme Court
again, where we will in all probability get
Judgment in our favor
when will you get the money that the
Supreme Court has already decided is
yours?"
''Not for thirty days from the date of
judgment. No Supreme Court decision is
final for thirty days after the filing of the
opinion. That is to allow the other side to
petition for a rehearing and the petition
has to be filed within twenty days after
the decision and the Supreme Court has to
take up the petition for rehearing within
thirty days. Tomorrow is the last day set
for filing the petition for rehearing which
l understand is now being prepared"
Later in the day Attorney W. S. Wood
was found and stated that he would file his
petition to-day for the defendants and that
there would be twenty-five pages of the
document.
Upon what lines the petition for re-
hearing will be constructed is not known,
but one of the attorneys for the defend
ants said recently at the Silver Conven-
ton in the hearing of several gentlemen
that the defense was preparing a petition
for rehearing, that it was twenty-five pages
long and that he was satisfied that it
wouldn't do a particle of good, and that
the game was up and the case was lost
He not only repeated this several times,
but reviewed the case and pointed out the
foolshness of making such demand on
the court.
1t will be seen from the recent develop
ments that the Hale & Norcross case is
turned completely upside down, and those
who are in a position to know claim that
as soon as the claim for $3.50, 900 damages
to the stockholders is settled there will be
more trouble from other sources. Mr. Fox
said yesterday that the statute of limita-
ton had not run out on some other
charges that would be brought, and that
there were other cases besides the one that
has Hale & Nnrcrnss in its title