The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-08-03
ON 4 BARE. !. !.
.FECH |: J. |. | | y
- ---- r.. 8: :. ~: 4 H. +.
Two Indictments. Against
DR.. Stable Dismissed BY e.
Judge: Cook,
Grand Juror R. B, Kittredge Had lad
No Legal :Right::to Be a.:... !
Grand .Jurymarl'.,...' FL. q.
Other Acts Of the Late. Inquisitotriat !.
Body Will Be Held to Be :'::....:
~ "tt@' Sc.

DR.. Frederick. II. Stable has two more
chances to escape from the consequences
of his term at the City and County Hos
pitaI..: because "a brace. OF. indictments
charging him with. Elm bezzlement. were
dismissed by Judge Carroll. Cook on a
technical objection yesterday. =. -. r.
The point was made that one Of. the.
grand jurors who voted for the indictment
was not a taxpayer, and consequently. the
indictment was void. ~.
Attorney Edgar Peixotto, representing
the prisoner. contended, that as Grand
Juror r. B. Kittredge did not pay any.
taxes to the City and County he was not
qualified TO act as an.inquisftor into the,
affairs of other me iii bers of the commun-:
ity In support ofthis he presented proof
. that the property belonging to the Kit
tredge. family was assessed 10 Mrs. Kit
tredge; and, although that. fact had no
relevancy, he brought out that the
amount paid in taxes was less than dol
lar. =: -. a.: -
+ Assistant District Attorney. Hosmer,
representing the District Attorney, made
no opposition to the motion to dismiss
the indictments in. question: and the
court made the order. as requested, re-
marking incidentally that the law Is clear
and cannot be misun derstood. Dir. Stable
was therefore ordered dismissed from
custody, so faras the. TWO indictments in
controversy were concerned: -:
This order does not get Stable out OF
his troubles, however, for he will be called
on to answer two'other indictments that
were based on substantially the same
grounds, charging him with taking valu-
aole property belonging to'the City and
County. Although these indictments
were formulated and presented by tho
same Grand Jury. it is held that they will
legally hold as against The defendant be-
cause he did not raise the technical OBJ
lection that one of the grand jurors was
not qualified to act. Instead of making
that point he filed a demurrer, thus
legally waving his right in that respect.
The demurrer was offered on the ground
that the word ;bailee" was used in the ac-
ousation of the Grand Jury, which, Mr..
Peixotto asserted, was fatal defect.
Nj. Hosmer does not take this view. of
the case. He thinks the word "bailee"
may be treated as 'surplusage,' and will
SO argue when the case comes up for hear
ing. The fate of DIR. Stable may thus be
seen to hang ION a particularly slender
thread of technical con struction. - =. -.
. Friends OF Mr.. Kittredee feel that some
explanation is due him on account of the.
unfortunate position in which. he finds
himself: At the time he was examined
in regard, to- his:quaiiications to serve as
a grand Juror he thong ht be, was on the
tax list. not Knowing: that his wife had
made out the list of property in her own
name. This lack of Information caused
the mistake to be made and led to the en- {
tanglements that have: since ensued. :.:< ;:
Several other indictments were pre-:
sented by the same Grand Jury. The
binding force of these will not be dis:
turbed, Mr.. Hosmer says, because the ac-
cused in all the other; cases have filed
their pleas Of .s.guilty,' or: mot guilty.
thus waiying their right tomake technical
objection to the manner: in which the
Grand Jury was organized. =: =. = Il. -