The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-09-28
.PHELAN TELLS
WHY He WAS
INTERESTED
Appears as q Witness
Against Widber.
IMPORTANT CONVERSATIONS
THE DEFENDANTS MENTAL
CONDITION IN QUESTION.
A Claim to Be Made That He
Was Under the Influence
of Liquor and
Narcotics.
IMPORTANT CONVERSATIONS
THE DEFENDANTS MENTAL
CONDITION IN QUESTION.

Interest in the widber case shifted yes
terday from the defendant to one OF the
witnesses for the prosecution, mayor
Phelan. who spent the greater part Oh
Yesterday afternoon on the stano.
Mayor Phelan was called by the prose
cution to tell of certain conversations ne
md had with the defendant in regard TO
the treasury shortage, put ne was nu' a.. a.
lowed to tell them, at least not until ING
-defanse has had a chance to get In eVl-
dence to show that the Conversations
I,,era not obtained under circumstances
which make them unavailable as evidence
The contention of the defense is that the
Mavor had a personal interest III Tue ooo0
and that he induced the derendaIt 10 an
sver questions so as TO protect "nae IN
terest the Mayor had and guard him from
sTt, of the blame that was so freely be-
slowed. The defense also wished TO sho"
that no one told Widber that he neeu not
answer any of the questions put 10 lhih'
and also that he was not allowed the
privilege of counsel while he was oelns
questioned. -, -r,a. ,nada which
might throw some light on the propaDle
course of the defense. MT. Felhotto ma i
particular in his ~ +He daA
the Mayor what the appearance OF the oe-
PENDANT was at the time he was .unuSI III
ouisition, and then as the Mayor deGlateu
he thought Widber cool and CAIN, put d
little tired, the defense hao " oiiie -
Don't you remember. Mr.. Phelan,
asked Peixotto. that this deIsnoan.
looked as If ne was under the influencee
If H0uor or some narcotics" mo, SAID
the Mayor, but counsel Tor tne oeIehse
was unwilling to let the quesiion pass:
didn't re appear nervous and Preoccu,
MED: didn't he seem absent-minded and
inattentive, and the questions ONLY
stopped when the Mayor said he was sure
nothing was the matter with the prisoner
because of the ready and intelligent an
swers he gave to the questions put 10
Earlier in the day an attempt was made
nv the defense to get in similar bit OF
testimony through Charles McCleVerty' "a
deputy under Wi9oer, VINO MS his arrest
and for a week before Widber had been
mentally incapacitated by reason OF over
ever because the evidence was not
proper from the defense at that time, anu
SO the witness had no chance to say Wnat
he knew. 1t indicates. however, that tners
the technicalities of the defense.
NJ de la Montanya was called the hrst
nony in regard to the condition or the
coin sacks. the way they had been opened
and the way. they had been TIED up again m
Following him came Mr.. BroderlcK, me
Auditor, to tell that the report or the
treasurer for the month of March last
was made up in Widber's own hanawrit-
ing. and that 1t showed that the FUNDS
were all correct, and that the money WAS
all in the vaults. Then Louis Jacobs came
to say that he took. none OF the money
and that he did not know who did Max
Warschauer swore to the same set or
facts, as did also John Broderick. Henry
Strehl, another deputy, told Of fu the oepfes r
5000, which was the one referred to by
be Ia Montanya as being made by Wild
Der to cover a shortage known at the time
only to De la Montanya-
Mayor Phelan then took the stand ana
spent the afternoon there.
Nothing the Mayor had to offer In the
tense and so the record for yesterday aft
The Mayor had had two con con
E n the o Sith of the pFsSehhsist
Police and the other in, the County Jail
TO the subject matter OF the first one Mt Mr.
Pelxotto objected because he said it had
not been shown that the replies to cues
tons were. voluntary: Then MI. Hosmer
tried to. show that they were voluntary ~
selves-whieh he had just ruled out
were the best evidence OF the TACT OF their
character. Nothing daunted, Mr.. Hosmer
offered the transcript and again MT.
Peixotto objected, because, he said, IT was
not the proper time ana ne re- wanted to
L.
ton before 1t went to the jury. Finally
1t was submitted in evidence for the bene-
fit Of the court only until such time as II
is thought proper to bring 1t before the
jury~that is. If Mr.. Peixotto cannot keep
1t out altogether
The conversation held at the County Jail
went through a similar course.
Mr. Peixotto. then cross-examined. He
showed that at the conversation held In
the office of the Chief of Police the Mayor
nor any one else notified the defendant
hot he W. cOmnelled
further that 1t had all the appearance of
an official investigation. AS to the second
conversation-the one at the jail, Mr..
DID "Did you lI not tell the defendant that
you had personal interest in the case?
did you not tell him that you had a
personal: responsibility in the case and
that the newspapers had been criticising
your"
"a responsibility, yes; may have done
SO to induce him to answer"
do you remember the words.you used
before You questioned him. Do you re-
terested in the matter: that the papers
had been charging you with neglect and
that you were up there to secure a state
ment from him which would show you
had not been guilty of neglect?"
1T may have said something Of the
kind. ! told him the papers had taken up
Broderick, Judge Bahrs and myself, had
come under criticism This, however,
was only to pave the way for an an
swer. Then / asked him as a matter OF
curiosity and information how the silver
had been substituted for gold"
WAS 1t not for your own private in
terest and not for information?"
mo: was curious to get the informa-
ton and also wanted 1t to help in the
prosecution
SIS 1t not a fact that you had been
warned by the Fidelity Company that you
had not only civil but criminal respon-
sibility?"
mo, that was not until four days
after said the Mayor, after he had asked
permission to answer despite the objec-
lions of the prosecution to the question
And then the Mayor went on to tell of the
suit which the Supervisors had ordered
brought against the surety company
Mr.. Hosmer objected to any more such
questions, but Mr.. Peixotto maintained he
had a right to show that the witness had
a personal interest In securing a state
ment from the defendant and that any,
thing that the defendant had said to him