The San Francisco call., 1896-04-04
Public Prosecutor Charged With
Acting for Insurance
Companies.
CALLS his ACCUsER A LIAR.
Spirited Colloquy at the Beginning of
the Examinati ton - Witnesses
Are Excluded.

WOODLANO, OAL, April o.-1Qe pre-
iminary examination of Charles A. Shep-
herd and P. G. Collum. late proprietors of
the Woodland woolen- mills, charged with
arson, was commenced this afternoon be-
fore Justice E. T. hampton. District At
torney Hopkins appeared for the people
and the defendants interests are looked
after by Attorneys Clark and Gaddis. Not
in many months has public interest been
so great. The commodious assembly
room of the City Hall was crowded to the
doors, and many women manifested by
their presence an interest in the proceed
ings.
The case was opened by the reading of
the deposition of E. R. Shirley, the night
watcbman of the mill, in which he de-
clared that the partners had confessed to
him that they applied the match to the
building and tried to buy his silence. OBJ
jections by the defendants counsel, based
upon the contention that the statement
was sworn to on information and belief
and not upon specific grounds, was over
ruled, as was also the motion of Attorney
Gaddis to examine the defendants sepa-
rately. Twenty-three witnesses for the
prosecution were sworn and excluded
from the room.
L. P. Everett, surveyor of Guinda, was
the first witness to take the stand. He
exhibited a map of the surroundings of
the burned property, to be used for the
convenience of witnesses in locating points
and distances.
When II. G. Watkins, manager of the
Laugenour estate, was called 10 the stand
a heated discussion arose over the answer
to the first question propounded by the
District Attorney: "Who was in legal
possession of the mills on the night of the
fire?"
81 do not know and do not believe that
it is necessary for me to express a legal
opinion as to the ownership of the prop
erty," was the witness reply. Hopkins
was not slow in manifesting his displeas-
ure at what he presumed to be an unsatis-
factory answer, and suggested that the
court issue subpoena for all the volumes
in the Recorders office bearing upon the
matter. Further questioning adduced the
statement that the defendants held the
property under lease signed by Hon. H.
w. Laugenour. The witness was excused
after the motion that his testimony be
stricken out was denied.
Miss Nora Andrews. stenoyrapher oc-
cupied the stand for nearly two hours.
Her testimony related to stenographic
report of an interview between Shepherd
and Attorney Coogan, representing San
Francisco insurance companies, as to the
amount of money put into the mills by
the defendants; what goods were on hand
previous to and at the time of the fire, and
the financial condition of the lessees. At
torney Clark objected to this line of oues-
tioning, and said that the District Attor-
ney was private prosecutor; that he was
exceeding his official duties; that on the
morning of the fire he telegraphed to the
insurance companies not to pay the policy
that it was case of arson. Clark in
timated that the District Attorney was the
paid servant of the insurance companies
in the case, and that he was and should be
disqualified.
Hopkins was white with anger when he
arose to reply. Said he: 'sAny man in or
out Of the courtroom who says that &C.
cepted bribe is .emptible liar. I re-
gret to be compelled to make this state
ment. but l cannot remain silent when
subjected to such an insult before this
multitude. My personal interest in this
case does not reach further than the desire
prompted by an honest duty to punish
crimes and criminals. I will show in re-
buttal by this line of testimony that no
money has been paid into the business bv
either of the defendants and that there
was no stock on hand at the time of the
fire."
At this juncture Attorney Gaddis called
the attention of the court to the fact that
Detective BURY, one of the excluded wit
nesses, was listening to the argument.
BURY was ordered to keep out of hearing.
Tuar6ay