The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-06
DIS AGREEMENT
OF THE JURY
Judge Hebbard Fails to
Convict T. S. Williams
of Libel.
Attorney Foote Makes an Elk.
traordinary Plea and a
Promise.
An Argument Astounding in Sent.
ment-Barc ay Henley on the
Verdict

Twelve weary men filed into Judge
Daingerfeld's court in charge of Deputy
Sheriff Hayes at half-past 5 o'clock last
evening, and as Clerk bunker called tho
role they answered TO the following
names: John D. Robertson, Myer Cohn,
John Riordan, Alfred Eisen, L. r. Hor-
ton, Chris. NJ. Christopher, Joseph M.
Donlon, NJ. H. Gaffney, John Ii. Mehr-
tens, Alfred Packsher, John Percy, Orrln
Bailey.
These tired citizens were the jurors in
the case of Thomas .. Williams Jr., who
was charged with llbeling J. .. b. Heb
bard. They had been locked up for twenty
four hours.
Before calling the jury into court to
ascertain their opinions in regard to the
probability of an agreement Judge Dam
gerfieli expressed desire 10 have the
deliberations of the jury prolonged for at
least another night, put at the request OF
the prosecuting witness and the defendant
it was decided to have the jurors in ana
hear what they had to say.
One incident which led to the calling IN
of the Jury was reported by the balllff.
He stated to the court that a member OF
the Jury had obtained possession of
book which he persisted In reading, lgnor-
ing other members or The jury.
Foreman Donlon informed Judge Dam
gerfieId that he thought it would be i'm
possible to agree, one of their number
had refused to agree to any honorable
suggestion for settling the question.
Juror Robertson firmly objected to this
remark and the jurors were asked one by
one if they thought they could ever agree.
They all replied in the negative and were
discharged at the request of Attorney
Kahn, representing the prosecution, and
Attorneys Baker and Costello, represent
ing the defendant.
II is thought that Williams will not be
tried again on this charge.
Mr.. Henley, speaking last night OF the
action of the jury in failing TO acquit
Thomas s. Williams, stated that 1T was
due mainly to two causes, viz:
First the refusal of Judge DANGER
field to admit certain material and i'm
portant evidence tending to establish the
justification of the libel; secondly, that
portion of MI Foote'S speech wherein he
urged etjury to convicr, saying if they
acquitted ii would ruin and destroy Judge
'HeDbards future usefulness on the bench
and place an indelible stain on his char
acter whereas if they convicted Williams
he (Foote) would see that the fine was
merely nominal.
This extraordinary plea was twice
urged by Mr.. Foote with great force and
earnestness. 1t was q remarka BILE state
ment to make to jury.
I'm other words, an acqulttal wou d
ruin Hebbard and conviction would not
harm Williams. 1t Is not at all strange
that this argument produced some result,
but it is strange that counsel should lose
sight OF Justice and get far into the realms
of sentiment.
1.-THE public will wonder If Mr.. Foote
would have been able to deliver the goods
ana got the defendant off with a nominal
fine in case the jury had convicted.
LAS to whether the result thus obtained
may be fairly REGARDED as vindication of
Judge Hebbard the public may determine
as it may elect"