The San Francisco call., 1897-08-11
WHELAN
REFUSES
TO Obey
Declines to Cause the Ar
rest of Examiner De-
PENDANTS.
RELIES ON A PECULIAR OPINION.
Advised Contrary to the Law
as Interpreted by the
Superior Court.
CLAUS SPRECKELS AFTER HEARST.
Scene at the County Clerks Office.
Default Entered Against Will
liams and Aiken.
RELIES ON A PECULIAR OPINION.
CLAUS SPRECKELS AFTER HEARST.

A default has been entered in the Supe-
rior Court against two OF the defendants
in the suits of Claus Spreckels against
Hearst, Williams, Lawrence and Alike n.
The chief counsel for Hearst, in his haste
to get an extension of time for defendants
to answer certain questions before the
notary, got his papers OF application
mixed, and hence extension was not al
lowed in case against Williams and in a
case against Aiken. At the expiration of
the time designated Messrs. Johnson. Lin
forth and Whitaker had the default en-
tered. Counsel for the Examiner at
tempted to bulldoze the County Clerk s
deputy as they did Notary Craig and his
bondsmen, but the scheme failed to ter
rify. In his rage one of the Examiner
lawyers grabbed paper Of record and
changed the number thereon. but the
clerk al once made an Endorsement on the
paper of the change. The decree, how
ever is entered and cannot be set aside
except by the court.
Hearst now fully com prehends that he
has run up against a man who will stand
no nonsense. For time his lawyers may
keep him out of court by such tactics as
changing papers of record and threaten
ing officers of the law, but ultimately he
will be brought 20 justice. Claus Spreck-
els did not institute the libel suit for pas
time. He means straight business.
Yesterday Reddy. Campbell & Nelson
advised Sheriff Whelan that Notary Craig
had no power to commit Lawrence and
William for contempt, and SO the Sheriff
declined to arrest the defendants. This
refusal on the part of the Sheriff to arrest
the defendants may cause some delay in
getting the true issue before the court,
and may develop another issue on the
side, but the side issues Will not obscure
the main point.
No doubt the opinion handed down by
Patrick Reddy is acceptable to the de-
PENDANTS. The advice which Reddy gave
to the Sheriff was not unexpected in the
Office OF the plaintiffs counsel, and surely
no one of Hearst's counsel was surprised.
1t may be surmised that Dick Whelan
himself was not overcome with astonish.
ment. The fact that Reddy. Campbell &
Metson in the Weinstock vs. McClatchy
libel suit advanced the doctrine that a
notary had power to punish witnesses for
contempt shows that the firm, having
decided both ways, is bound to be right
not surprising.
In view Of the opinion which Reddy,
Campbell & M.tson rendered to the
Sheriff, aud which is published herewith
it is interesting to note the decision rem
dered by the Superior Court of Sacra-
mento County in the Weinstock- Nc
CATCHY case. In that suit this law firm
now the adviser of the Sheriff of San
Francisco, was the counsel of record for
the plaintiff McClatchy. Elaborate argu-
ment was made to convince the court that
the notary had power to punish for con-
tempt, and the court, hearing the argu-
ment and considering the numerous au.
thorities presented, rendered this deci-
sion:
then must conclude. from
the high authority given, that
mOtaries have power under our
statutes TO punish for G ON tempt
n witness who refuses to an
swer a question proper to be
asked.
The lawyers employed 10 advise the
Sheriff were not led into ambush. The
brief which Johnson, Linforth & Whit
aker handed over to Reddy, Campbell &
Metson contained citation of the Sacra-
mento case, and Mr.. Reddy knew, when
he advised the Sheriff that notaries had
no power to punish for con tie mpt, that
decision to the contrary had been rem
dered in case in which his firm was
counsel of record, and in which client Of
the firm gained the point at issue.
The weakness of the Sheriff will not
change the determination of Claus
Spreckes counsel to bring Hearst into
court. A way may be found 10 bring the
case before the Superior Court on pro-
ceeding of another kind, and when all the
facts are presented the court may decide
that notary has power to punish for
contem pit and that the Sheriff neglect to
arrest the defendants for refusing to an
swer proper questions constituted neglect
in the performance OF his official duties.
Section 772 of the Penal Code provides
this remedy:
When an accusation in writing, verified by
the oath of any person, is presented to Su-
perior Court alleging that any officer within
the jurisdiction OF the court has been guilty
OF charging and collecting illegal fees for SER
vices rendered, or to be rendered, in his office,
or has refused or neglected to perform the
official duties pertaining to his office, the
court must cite the party charged to appear
before the court at a time not more than ten
nor less than five days from the time the ac-
cusatlon was presented, and that day, or
some other subsequent day not more tha an
twenty days from that on which the accusa-
ton was presented must proceed to hear, in a
summary manner, the accusation and the evil
dence offered In support of the same and the
answer and evidence offered by the party ac-
cused; and if. on such hearing, 1t appears
that the charge is sustained, the court must
nter decree that The party accused be de.
prived of his office, and must en- er a jude-
ment for $500 in favor of the informer and
such costs as are allowed in civil cases
amendments approved April II. 1880:
me- me ndments 1880, 80. In effect April H.
1SS0)
Hearst is making the fight of his life 10
escape service in these libel suits insti-
tuted bV Claus Spreckels He dreada thu