The San Francisco call., 1896-03-14
THE CHARGES AGAINST CHASE WERE TRUE.

He had been very careful not to commit
himself, he stated, giving Mr.. Chase "all
the rope he wanted but not saying that
he would or would not swear as requested.
When the bogus bids were presented to
him he informed Samuel M. Shortridge,
the defendants brother, and made COM
plete statement of the case.
The plaintiff was evidently not prepared
for such an exposure, but Attorney Hee-
nan launched out vigorous attempt to
break down the architects statement. Mr..
Delmas objected to the form of one OF the
questions.
81 have the right to impeach the wit
ness ~ exclaimed Mr.. Heenan.
''But he is your own Witness" was the
retort.
Mr. Heenan abruptly abandoned the in.
quiry and Attorney Reynolds, his asso-
ciate, arose and asked for permission to go
on with the questioning. Judge Johnson
would not permit that, however, as it was
contrary to the rules of practice. Mr..
Reynolds then communicated his thoughts
TO Mr.. Heenan and the latter asked the
questions.
Architect Chadwick fatty contradicted
the plaintiff on every material point.
Mr.. Delmas at the cross-examination
produced one of the documents which was
alleged to be bid presented by Chase to
the architect last July.
when did you first see this?" he asked.
Yesterday was the reply, and Mr..
Chadwick related his conversation with
Mr.. Chase and the incidents connected
with 1t.
The other alleged bids were produced
and Chadwick gave similar testimony re-
garding them.
"And he asked you to swear to these
things which you declare under oath to be
false ?" continued Mr.. Delmas.
Eyes, SIR" replied the witness. HE
wanted me to commit rank perjury"
Harry B. Jennings. barber, was the
next witness. He testified that he was a
member of the order of Montezuma. Mr..
Chase applied for membership but was
black palled on account of the charge of
embezzlement.
Patrick D. Fitzpatrick, plumber, was
called TO testify about MIR. Chase's business
affairs. On cross-examination it was shown
that after doing work by order of Mr..
Chase, he had been compelled to sue the
owner of the house to get his money but
he did not regard Mr.. Chase as responsible
for that debt, and in other instances the
latter had paid him.
Michael McGreevey is a bricklayer. He
has held sub-contracts under Mr.. Chase.
Though called on as a witness for the
plaintiff, he admitted to Mr.. Delmas that
he had experienced difficulty in collecting
money. Once he had quarreled with Chase
at primary.
"Did that election fight have anything
to do with business affairs?" was one of
the questions.
There might have been some feeling on
that proposition"
"Was the trouble settled there and
then?"
There was vehemence and a sort of sup
pressed excitement in the answer that shot
forth:
''It was not, sir"
''Did you have trouble in getting your
money from Mr.. Chaser"
"Well, he sent ne to the owner of the
place and l had to put lien on the prop
erty."
The next witness was John c. Chase Jr.,
who, although a carpenter aud living at
question, knew practically nothing about
his fathers building operations.
"Didn'tyour father tell you about his
contracts ?'' asked Mr.. Delmas.
"Yes, he told me when he got job"
Didn't he tell you what it was?"
mo"
"Wnat was the contract that you say
Mr.. Chadwick went first to talk with your
father about?'
"a cottage; l think"
Whose cottage?"
81 don't know.
"Where was it to be built?"
~ couldn't tell"
"What was the price?"
81 never heard"
''Did YOUR father get the contract?"
stNo."
Other alleged contracts were gone over
in the same way and the grown up son of
Mr.. Chase showed that he had little knowl-
edge of his fathers business affairs.
Ibid your father ever get a contract
from Mr.. Chadwick" ?" Mr.. Delmas asked.
No"
Attorneys Reynolds and Heenan, repre-
senting the plaintiff, went to the witness
StanQ 10 declare InaC MT. CQaQWlcK naQ
told them that Chase had lost building
contracts on account of The CALL article
and that he would so testify.
The two attorneys admitted to Mr.. Del
mas at the cross-examination that as fees
in the case they were only to get per-
centage of any damages that might be
awarded to Chase.
When the defense was begun on Wednes-
day Mrs. Martha Wiebeke and other
property-owners denied that they had re-
fused to give building contracts to Chase
on account of his reputation after the CALL
publication. They swore positively that
they had not received bids from him.
Mr. Chadwick was recalled TO testify
further about the building operations
which Chase had alluded to and he pre-
sented notebook containing the record
OF his work for more than two years to
show that Chase had not presented bids as
claimed.
Mrs. Lyons, cook on Second street,
testified that she had paid 81 80 in lodge
dues to Chase. and that the latter had not
made any return of the money.
Several officers in the Ancient Order of