The San Francisco call., 1897-08-24
THE BAIL Of
A. N. LAW renee
Power of Police Judge
Campbell to Forfeit the
Bond.
Extended Argument Heard by
Judge Wallace on the Writ
of Prohibition.
Saturday Next the Last Day for Talk.
A Decision Will Then Be
Rendered.

A demurrer to the writ issued by Judge
Seawell TO restrain Police Judge Campbell
from forfeiting the bail of A. NJ. Lawrence,
one of the Examiner defendants in GRIM
mai libel proceedings, was argued before
Judge Wallace yesterday. Judge Campbell,
Grove L. Johnson, Waiter Linforth, Gar
ret McEnerney, A. J. Clunie and W. ii. l..
Barnes were present.
At the outset Mr.. McEnerney, counsel
for Lawrence wanted further delay on the
ground that he had just received notice OF
the demurrer. Mr.. Johnson briefly called
the courts attention to the fact that the
question presented in the demurrer was
the same as that set forth in the petition
to dismiss the writ and that McEnerney
himself had suggested demurrer as the
proper proceeding.
Judge Wallace decided to let the argu-
ment proceed and give counsel for Law
renee opportunity to reply at another time
if they desired. The Judge also reminded
counsel that the case had been arbitrarily
assigned to him by the Presiding Judge.
The constitutional right OF the Presiding
Judge to make the assignment was not
disputed.
MIR. Johnson then recited the history OF
renee for criminal libel on com plant
sworn to by Claus Spreckels, and all the
intermediate incidents Leading up 10 the
issue OF the writ OF prohibition by Judge
Seaweil to restrain forfeiture OF Law.
rences bail bond by the Police Court.
The question, after considerable sklrmlsh-
ing on the part of Lawrence's counsel to
avoid the main point, turned on the prop
osition as 10 the Jurisdiction of the Police
Court to decide whether the defendant
should be actually present In court curing
the examination.
The court asked Mr.. McEnerney if the
proposition of jurisdiction was disputed,
and he said it was not
Mr.. Johnson contended that it made no
difference how erroneous the ruling might
have been, the defendant had speedy
and adequate remedy.
The court suggested that when the
question arose some body had to decide it,
and that Judge Campbell was the only
one to render the decision.
Mr.. McEnerney said: Suppose he
made void order? Our contention is
that he did,
Many incidental questions were raised;
the sutficiency or rather the application
of the bond was discussed, and much
time was consumed in argument or talk
until the proposition was again narrowed
down to the question whether the Police
Court had the power TO compel the per-
sonal attendance of the defendant.
Mr.. Clunie insisted that Judge Campbell
had no power to decide either one way or
the other.
Mr.. Johnson directed the courts at!en.
tion to the law as expressed in the sta tutes
that the defendant must be personally
present before the trial can proceed, and
that the witnesses must be examined in
the presence of the defendant. The elabo-
oir,a kxzt 49,
ton of numerous decisions bearing di-
rectly on the question at issue, and many
replies were made TO inquiries from the
court and opposing counsel.
Mr.. Clunie in reply contended that the
provisions OF the statute requiring wit
nesses TO be examined IN the presence OF
the defendant was placed there 10 benefit
the defendant and could be waived il the
accused so desired. he cited authorities
on the point. 1t was further contended
that the bond could not be forfeited until
the defendant refused to appear in the
court before which he was finally held.
So much was said about the peculiar
features of this particular bond that the
instrument of bail was sent for ara care
fully scanned by the court and all the
lawyers present.
Judge Wallace thought it was plain
enough that the bond required the de-
fendants presence at the examination in
the Police Court whenever such presence
was required by the court.
The discussion took. wider range. Mr..
Clunie said it was not right that the de-
fendant, Lawrence, should be compelled
10 attend the Police Court day after day
for weeks and neglect the paper which
needed his services as editor. This ques-
tion," said Mr. Ciunie, lis of great i'm port
ance TO the defendant, who is the manag-
ing editor of a daily paper, and 1 hope
your Honor will give the subject the most
careful examination and consider all the
authorities presented. The question is
great in Importance. 1t may possibly IN
volve the suspension of paper. Jadge
Campbell may harrass the editors and
bring them one by one into court"
Grove Johnson did not betray any alarm
or agitation at the possibility of this great
calamity, but calmly proceeded with the
legal argument TO tne effect that the
Police Court had power to determine the
question whether the defendant should be
present.
At the expiration of three hours talk
and after numerous authorities had been
cited and carefully noted Judge Wallace
said he would permit further argument
any day this week between the hours of
II O. clock noon and P. NJ. until Saturday
at 10 o'clock in the morning, when he
would listen to final argument and decide
the case.
associate, Mr.. McEnerney, would be en-
cepted Saturday as the day for final
rUnTNp VpMNpv h0cAT1T mrn