The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-09-06
DEMURRER ovERRULED.
Judge Seawell Ordered the Ac-
cuSed Seven to Answer
at Once.
DICKINsONS ORAL REF
On September % the Day for Hearing
the Testimony in the Case
Viii; Be Set.
REPLY,

Judge Seawen yesterday overruled the
demurrer of the Board of Supervisors to
the accusations of the Grand Jury, charg-
ing them with conspiracy and corruption,
in reducing the tax assessments of several
corporations General J. II. Dickinson, in
behalf of the Supervisors, made a general
oral denial of the accusation and asked
that he be allowed further time in which
to file an amended answer. He was granted
five days.
The accused will now surely be brought
to trial, September % being named as the
day on which the case will be set. a Jury
will determine the merits of the accuse
ton. Following is the substance of Judge
Seawelps decision as to the demurrer:
The objections urged by defendants counsel
In support OF their demurrer TO the accusa-
ton may be briefly stated as follows:
First-The facts constituting the alleged cor.
ruption in Office are not tated.
Second-Several causes of action have been
Improperly united.
THRIFT does not appear that the reduction
OF assessments complained of wac made by the
Board of Equalization.
Fourth-The Board oil Equalization had iuris.
diction OF the matter OF reducing the assess
ments, and its action is conclusive.
Tristan accusation in writing against any
county or municipal officer for wiIlful OF cor
rupt misconduct in office may be presented bv
the Grand Jury of the county for or in which
(Penal Code, 1881
The word "corruptly'' imports q wrongful
design TO acquire or cause some pecuniary or
other advantage 10 the person guilty of the
act or omission referred to or to some other
person. penal Code, sec. z, sub. 81
In order TO prove that officer has acted
corruptly it is not, therefore, necessary to
show design or intent to acquire any peeun-
iary or other advantage for himself. 1t is SUI
fcient If II appears that he had the wrongful
design to cause pecuniary advantage to some
other person. The allegation of the ACCUSE
ton is that the reductions by defendants OF
certain assessments were made with the in
tent to defraud the City and County OF San
Francisco of portion OF its revenue and with
the willful and corrupt attempt to aid and as
sist certsin corporations in eVading their Just
proportion of taxes due to said City and County
for The present fiscal year. The reduction Of
TO the corporations think that the accusation
sufficiently states the facts constituting the al
legged corrupt misconduct
Second-Ihe rule that only one offense can
be charged in the same pie aiding is confined
to an Indictment or information. (Penal
Code, 954.)
An accusation for misconduct in Office is q
different and distinct proceeding from that by
Indictment or Information. penal Code, 9S8,
$50, $50; in re Curtis, los Cal, 663)
Section 762 of the Penal Code provides that
"the defendant may answer the accusation
either by obiecting TO the suffciency thereof
or of any article therein" This language i'm
plies that the accusation may contain more
than one article. The word article" is evil
IDENTIFY here used in the same sense as in i'm
parchment proceedings, which are the subject
of the next preceding chapter and TO which the
present proceeding is analogous.
No good reason can be assigned WHY the
people should not be permitted in one pro-
ceeding to show all the acts of misconduct of
which the accused officer has been guilty No
matter how many such acts are alleged or
proved only one penalty Can be imposed-re-
moval from Office. It would certainly be on
presstye to the officer TO be compelled to de-
n1d q m nf re AfT,crs
one would suffice.
Third-The third ground of objection. as
understand it, is that the accusation merely
sets forth that these seven defendants caused
the reductions complained OF to be made but
does not allege that the reduction was made
by the Board of Equalization.
The accusation alleges that at a meeting of
the Board OF Equalization, held july 90
1896, all the defendants were present as mem.
bers OF said board, and constituted majority
thereof and controlled its action, and in their
official position as Supervisors and as man,
bers OF said Board OF Equalization agreed 10
the reduction OF said assessments and altered
and changed such assessments and ordered
such change and alteration to be recorded by
The clerk of said board in a book kept for that
purpose, and that the assessment as reduced
now stands upon the books of the CITY and
County as the actual and full value of the
property assessed. 1t is not important for the
prosecution to show the regularity of the nro-
ceedings 1t is expressly charged thet bv the
act OF these defendants the assessments were
reduced
Fourth-There is no question here as to the
jurisdiction OF the Board OF Equalization or as
TO the conclusive character of its order in re-
ducIng the assessments. Taxes can be col
leeted only upon the assessments as reduced.
but it does not follow that the defendants can
not be prosecuted for official misconduct IN
making the reduction. 1t is claimed that
there is no allegation to the evidence pro-
duced before the board and that il could act
only upon such evidence. The case of San
Francisco VS.. Flood, 81 Cal, cited by counsel
holds that the board cannot raise an assess
ment except upon evidence. 1t does not decide
tnet the members oil the board NAV not or
should not act upon their own knowledge
in refusing to lower an assessment or
that 1t is their duty to be con-
trolled by evidence which they know
is that when they reduced the assessments
the defendants well knew that any reduction
below the original assessment was greatly be-
low the actual cash value OF the property
While the value of property is generally q
matter of OPT MON, i am nos prepared to hold
as a pro osition of law that the value of
nroperty OF the character mentioned in the &C
eusation and defendants knowledge thereof
NAV not, at least within certain limits, be es-
tablished as O fact by competent and convinc-
ing evidence
The defendants demurrer to the accusation
will therefore be oVerruled.
The Judge then ordered General Dickin-
son the attorney for the defendants, to
mn in an oral plea to the accusation. He
denied all of the allegations and was al
lowed five days in which to amend his an
swer. The case was then set for tria on