The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-11-06
CHAS. HEYER'S
EXPLANATION
EXPLAINS NOT
Another Case of Tax
Stamp Frauds.
SUPPORTED BY RECORDS
EIS STATEMENT EVADES THE
VITAL POINT.
The Nan Who Attempted to Oppose
Honest John" Talcott Again
Courts Unpleasant
Notoriety.
SUPPORTED BY RECORDS
BIS STATEMENT EVADES THE
VITAL POINT.
Oakland once San Francisco Can,


sos Broadway, Nov. s.
Charles W. HeyerN who is the Demo-
cratic candidate opposed TO Supervisor
Talcott, has published a card in which he
refers to a story printed a few days
ago regarding his connection with certain
fraudulent transactions in connection
with the United States Government, and
the statutes governing the use of reYe-
nue. stamps. The facts in this case were
not printed until the i'll advised friends
of Mr.. Heyer so maligned Mr.. TaIcott,
whom Judge Ellsworth has declared to
be as honest a Supervisor as anybody
could wish. Mr.. Heyer says:
In this story IL is asserted that I was at that
time proprietor OF the brewery, and that
a party TO proceedings had Neither Of
these propositions are true, I was not a pro-
pretor nor in any way financially interested in
the institution. and / was in no way cognizant
OF the affairs OF the concern; neither was l g
party TO the proceedings in question.
The ateir vas based upon the statements
made by N. 3. Clark, discharged employe
who was seeking revenge for his discharge
and who was, at the time he called as a
witness, serving a sentence in the Alameda
County jail for some misdemeanor.
rms was ten years ago. and at that time
This takes the usual form Of campaign
story and is based upon the statements OF
man who has been arrested at different times
and who was revenge seeking. discharged
empioye.
Unfortunately for Mr. Heyer's argl-
ment he does not state the facts. One of
the frauds was partly laid bare by NJ. 3.
Clark. but in the case of the United
etc" being No. 1906 in the District Court
of the United States for the northern dis
ploye appears The charge says, after
reciting the fact that the brewery, wag-
ons, horses and beer were seized, that
Mr.. Heyer and his partner were the guilty
parties.
That the property so seized as aforesaid and
hereInhefore mentioned and described in this
owned by L. Palmfag and C W. Heyer and
was in their custody and possession in GER
wards. County Of Alameda, IN the State and
Northern District OF California. for the purpose
OF being sold without payment OF the tax due
thereon. in fraud OF internal revenue law, and
contrary 10 the form of the statute Of the
United States in such case made and provided
Whereby and By reason whereof the said
property so seized aforesaid and hereinbe-
fore described. became and is forfeited to the
SECOND COUNT.
And, for that. also. the said L. Palmtag and
Q. ". Heyer, owners OF the brewery and
brewery premises and other property herein
before IN this Information described did then
lently and with intent and design to defraud
ISIS. and at divers other days between the last
said Gate and the 23d day of July, 1891. evade
liquors. TO wit: On fifteen hundred barrels OF
beer thec and there manufactured by the said
L ailiieas gu = ~; aeyer, al ana py means
Of said brewery and brewery premises and
said property. BY removing from the said brew
cry and brewery premises the said fifteen hun
dred barrels containing fermented liquors, that
is TO say, beer without afixing 70 the said
barrels the stamps denoting the amount OF the
tax required upon the said fermented liquors,
in fraud Of the internal revenue law and con-
trary to the form Of the statute OF the United
States IN such case made and provided.
Whereby and by reason whereof the said
property seized as aforesaid and hereinbefore
mentioned and described in this information
became and is forfeited to the United States
Lastly, the said attorney OF the United States
behalf Of the said United States saith that
ali and singular the premises are true.
Wherefore, he prays that process in due form
Of law may issue against the said property
hereinbefors mentioned and described, to en-
force the forfeiture thereof and requiring no.
ttce to be given TO all persons concerned In in
terest TO appear and show cause on the return
day OF the said process, why such forfeiture
should not be decreed.
CHAS. A GARTER
United States Attorney.
This case, according to the records on
file, was compromised by Mr.. Heyer and
his partner paying to the United States
Government the neat snm Of 1880 This
suit is altogether distinct from the one to
which Mr.. Heyer refers in his card of
exclamation