The San Francisco call., 1897-08-13
he nodding and gently smiling mean

while.
"Call Andrew M. Lawrence, ordered
Judge Campbell, addressing the baillff.
one momentW exclaimed Attorney
Ciuale. Before you call him | would like
to be heard in this NATTER
"Call Andrew Nj. Lawrence first, Mr..
Balllff, and l will hear you afterward."
Lawrence made no response, and Clunle
stated that of course the defendant would
De produced if the court so desired. u
am mere as one of counsel with Cen
e1al Barnes and Mr. McEnerney. TIE
latter is momentarily detained in another
court and he would like to be heard in this
matter. l would ask, then, that the case
De continued over until tomorrow morn
ing al or 10 O'CLOCK"
Il will be busy at that time myself.
SAID the court. II will let the matter
stand for an hour. At $1,000 clock this
afternoon you must have tue defendant in
court or shall declare his bond forfeited
anG shall have to send and get him."
AT the appointed hour Attorney Clunie
came into court without Lawrence. but
with an order issued by Superior Judge
Seawell restraining Judge Campbell from
issuing bench-warrant for the arrest OF
Lawrence and from forleiting the bond.
The order likewise set the hearing on that
particular bond and warrant question for
August % at 10 A. NJ. before the Superior
Court.
Under the circumstances, stated
Judge Campbell, Il do not very well see
now l can proceed with the hearing OF the
case. L am firmly convinced that L am
right IN law 10 insist on the defendant De-
ing present in person at his arralsnment,
but can d o nothing 10 bring him here or
In the matter of lorfeiting his bond In the
face OF that restraining order. What DO
yor think OF il, Mr.. Johnson p
~ our Honor" answered counsel, that
order is not worth the paper it is written
on, and L, for one, as counsel, would &c Oh
with the case as If it had not been Is
sued'
Judge Campbell caused some merri-
menI by asking the attorney:
And will you go to jail for me II L do
proceed ?"
"Mr Barnes and I are ready to go on
with the case, as we proposed to do from
the start, without the presence OF Mr.. Law
renee" said Clunie.
TO this Attorney johnson objected, aud
the case was set for Saturday morning, TO
be reset then if it were not possible to
have Judge Seawell shorten the period
when the hearing is to be had IN the Su-
perior Court.
mmediauely after this movement on
the part OF Lawrence's counsel to delay
the proceedings and to shield the de-
fendant from the gaze of Police Court
non, as follows, 10 set aside the order OF
prohibitions:
In tn he Su perior Court of the City and County
OF San Francisco, State OF California.
Andrew NJ. Lawrence, petitioner and PLAIN
tiff, VS.. J. A. Campbell as Judge OF the Police
Court OF the City and County OF San Francisco,
defendant and respondent.
1ou and each of you will please take notlce
that on Monday, the 10th day OF August, 1897,
at the opening OF court on that day at 10 A. NJ,
or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard,
the above-named defendant and respondent
VIII move this honorable court and Hon. j. NJ.
Seawell, presiding Judge and Judge thereof,
at the courtroom of said court, Department l,
IN the new City Hall, San francisco, 'al1for-
MIA. 10 dissolve, vacate, set aside and dismiss
the writ of prohibition herein issued by the
said court on the 18th day of August, 1897, on
the ground that the same was Improperly, i'm
provdently and illegally issued and that the
a1hoavlt and petition upon which the same
was issued did not and does not state facts
suhclent to authorize the issuance OF said
writ or any writ OF prohibition, or TO constitute
any cause OF action against this defendant
motion defendant and respondent will rely
upon all the papers on file in his action and
proceeding and oral and documentary evil
dence hen and there to De produced.
Dated san francisco, August II, 1897.
j. A. Spinetti aud Johnson, Lintorth &
Whitaker, attorneys for defendant and re-
spondent, 10 Andrew NJ. Lawrence, petit
toner and plaintiff, and w. II. L. Barnes,
Garret w. McEnerney and A. J. Clun1e, at
torneys for said petitioner and plaintiff.
This proceeding instituted in Judge
SeawelPs court to prevent a forfeiture Of
Lawrence's bail in the Police Court may
strike lawyers as we'll as laymen as some
what extraordinary. but it must be borne
in mind that the Examiner defendants
are in a desperate situation. Ii is pos
siDle that Judge Seawell was misled by
one sided statement OF the case. No
reason seems TO have been shown why an
Examiner defendant, charged with having
mitted a crime, should not appear in
court just The same as any other offender.
The facts in the case will be presented in
full when the petition for vacating the
order of prohibition comes up next Mon
day. 1t is safe to predict that Lawrence
will be mpelled to attend the sessions of
the Police Court before the trial is finished
or suffer forfeiture of his bond.
The arrest of Lawrence is merely an in
cident OF the proceedings instituted by
Claus Spreckels. Lawrence is only
subordinate who is supposed to have some
authority derived from Hearst to repre-
sent the absent proprietor. He was
asked some questions before Notary Craig
which he declined to answer and he will
be asked other questions before the same
notary. The Sheriff may be called upon
again to discharge his duty, and the pub.
lie will be invited to see what course he
will pursue.
1t is well understood that Hearst will
pull every string that can be reached to
delay the proceedings, for he knows by
this time that ultimately he must re-
spond. Tricks of the law, evasions and
scampering out of town to dodge service
of summons will be common enough be-
fore the trial is ended. Every shifty dodge
TO evade responsibility in court weakens
Hearst in the estimation of the COM
munity and deprives his paper OF inhu-
ence.