The herald., 1897-12-10
The Jury Briber Receives
His Deserts
WAS FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS
OR $50 DAYS IN JAIL WAS HIs
PUNISHMENT
Judge Smith Has Something to Say
About Crooked Attorneys, But
Mentions No Names

yesterday to Jury briber whose Of
Tense was proved against him without
the ghost of doubt. 1t is true that he
was only charged with contempt OF
court. and In consequence the imposi,
tion Of a fine of $500. with an alternative
Of $50 days in the county jail is not
commensurate with the gravity of the
crime. But the people may have the
satisfaction yet of seeing the culprit
Frank r. Nicholson, who tried by the
maneuvers which have now brought
him to grief to cast odium, ridicule and
able at the bar Of the superior court
to the far graver crime. and much more
severely punished than contempt of
court, felony, in connection with his at
tempt to bribe Juror Longfellow of
Whittier.
The court, during the course of his re-
marks prior to sentencing Nicholson.
whom he evidently considered as a
mere tool, took occasion to reflect upon
the conduct Of certain attorneys whose
execrable and nefarlous methods in
criminal cases was suspected in this
community. 1t Is hardly likely that
Judge Smiths scathing remarks can
pierce the culrass Of such hardened
scoundrels as he referred to, but 1t may
have the effect of making these barna-
cles on the legal profession more care
full.
There seemed to be no hesitation in
the mind of the audience and bar to
guess whom the court alluded to, al
though the court was very careful not
to mention names. Yet, under the ten
tative efforts of Attorney Meserve, 1t
was almost expected that Judge Smith
would pronounce the name which was
in everybody's mouth.
When the case was called Attorney
Meserve stated that he understood that
the district attorney was about to issue
complaint against his client for fell
ony, the crime to be charged embracing
all the facts for which Nicholson had to
answer in the contempt of court case.
Mr.. Meserve thought that 1t would not
be fair to his client to try him now for
contempt with the felony charge about
to be issued. The attorney also de-
INJURED to the affidavit of Juror Long
fellow, who had accused Nicholson of
having attempted, on November 9th,
to brlbe him.
The court overruled the demurrer.
Deputy District Attorney Willis said he
did not believe that his office was then
preparing a complaint against Nichol-
son. Mr.. Meserve asked for further
time. but the court refused to let the
case be continued.
George A. Longfellow, the juror who
INC 10 10 ofH6o no11od ~
stand. He said he had got slightly ac-
quainted with the defendant at Long
Beach. He had a conversation with
after o'clock on Saturday afternoon,
private business at the office of Garfield
Bros. Witness shook hands with Mich
olson, and at that time another juror
named Strawbridge approached.
After speaking few minutes with
Nicholson, Strawbridge having mean
while departed, the defendant asked
witness what he was doing. and being
told that he was on jury duty at the
courthouse, the defendant offered him
$10O to "do what was right" in the
Compton case. Witness said that he
needed money badly enough, but that
that was too risky work. Nicholson re-
piled that the thing was very easy. All
Longfellow had to do was to give him a
bill of sale for watch or something
else. On the next Monday witness met
Nicholson In the corridor of floor No.
Of the courthouse and then offered him
a cigarette and said that the money
would be forthcoming the following
Wednesday. Longfellow stated that he
had been unaware that Nicholson was to
be witness in the Compton case and
only knew 1t when the accused took the
stand.
On cross-examination by Attorney
Pendleton, witness stated he had run
across Nicholson number of times and
while disclaiming that he knew him well
yet he knew him. He testified to being
painter living at Whittier. The wit
ness said he did not at first understand
what Nicholson meant when he said
to him: II can get you 500 if you will
do what is right in the Compton case. "
When he asked the defendant: care you
in it?" he desired to find out what tho
latter had to do with the matter. Long
fellow stated that at that time he was
in hurry, and that was the reason he
made an appointment with Nicholson
for Monday morning. On that day wit
ness confided to Attorney Fredericks the
defendants attempt to bribe him.
w. T. Strawbridge, also juror from
Whittier, corroborated Longfellow as to
having met him on Broadway on Satur-
day afternoon, Nov. 81. He did not no.
tice Nicholson at that time. After q few
words had been exchanged between him
self ana Longfellow he hurried on to
catch his train.
@. B. Canneld was put on the stand
by the defense and swore that he had met
Nicholson at p. m. on Saturday at his
residence on st. Louis street, Boyle
Heights, where they talked real estate
The cars pass the house every seven
minutes. Witness did not look at the
clock either when Nicholson came or
when he went away. Defendant at that
time gave witness card with his name
written on It.
The court catechised Canfleld thor
oughly to and out by what means he
was convinced that his meeting with
Nicholson had taken place ct o'clock.
but 1t was not explained satisfactorily.
Frank r.. Nicholson testified in his
own behalf that on the Saturday In
question he was at Boyle Heights be-
tween and & O'clock. He told OF his
movement IN the suburb Il was getting
dark when he wAs given his transfer Ia
laht Temple ptrSst car line ~ ~ noyls