The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-12
GRAND JURY PRESENTMENT.
ARGUMENT ON THE LEGALITY OF
AN ARREST MADE
UNDER ONE.
The QUESTION Is LEFT FOR THE
DECISION OF THE SUPREME
COURT.

Judge Lows courtroom was crowded to
the doors yesterday afternoon, the attrac-
ton being the argument on the legality of
arrests under presentments by the Grand
Jury.
Attorney H. c. McPike represented ex-
Supervisor Christian Refs, who is charged
with renting house for purposes of i'll
fame; Attorney Ruef represented other
property owners and the four women
charged with giving an indecent exhibit
ton, and District Attorney Barnes ap-
peared for the people.
Attorney McPike opened the argument
and restricted himself to the points that
the court had no jurisdiction at all, and
that no jurisdiction attached to the issu-
ance of any bench warrant. He referred
to the act defining the jurisdiction of the
Police courts, and sections 1926 and 1927 of
the Penal Code, which prescribed that a
complaint must be made under oath and
the court must issue warrant of arrest.
He spoke of the distinction between an in
dictment and presentment and pointed
out that in the constitution of 1879 no men
ton is made of presentment, but only of
an Indictment. He held also that Superior
courts had no jurisdiction in misdemeanor
cases except on appeal from the lower
courts, and he asked that the case against
Mr.. Refs be dismissed on the ground of no
Jurisdiction.
Attorney Ruef sarcastically remarked
that one of the women indicted had been
dead for two years, and another property
owner had been III Europe for twenty
years. He merely mentioned these cases
to show the care exercised by the Grand
| Jury in making their presentments. Ad-
hitting, for the sake of argument, that the
had r1rie 1LA ,{,,oa
was not presentment, as it was not signed
| by the foreman of the Grand Jury, as laid
down in section GAL of the Penal Code. 1t,
| therefore, stood in the same position as a
| mplaint not signed by the complaining
witness. All the presentments were signed
by the District Attorney, and not by the
| foreman. He asked for a dismissal of all
| the cases on that ground.
District Attorney Barnes argued that as
an indictment was perfectly valid without
| his signature, presentment was equally
valid without the signature of the fore
man. The presentments were Endorsed by
! the foreman, and no matter where they
were so signed there was the principal
| fact that his signature was on them. In
reply to Attorney McPike he argued that
whatever the ultimate decision might be
| the usual practice in such cases had been
followed. This being new procedure the
fact of its being proper or improper ought
to be known as speedily as possible, and
the only way was to get an authoritative
! decision by the court OF last resort, which
he suggested should be done.
| Attorney McPike agreed with the Dis
rrict Attorney, but Attorney Ruef OBJ
jected, as it would be putting his clients tc
unnecessary expense. The Judge, how
ever, continued all the cases, except Mr.
Reis' till Monday next. Mr.. Refs case
was continued until to-day, and mean
l., L
hibition ready to take the matter before
the Supreme Court