The San Francisco call., 1903-12-16

tinnony in said matter Of said charges. where
upon the said John G. Wetmore and others
not parties TO the proceedings were called as
witnesses. were questioned upon the subject
Of said charges and each made statements
concerning the same and thereupOn the taking
Of testimony was closed.
The board then proceeded to consider the
evidence in the case and after due eonSidera-
uo1 OF the same found that said charges
against the plaintiff had been established by
the evidence and were true, and adjudged that
its said permit should be revoked and can
celed, and II then and there revoked and can
celed the same. with revocation and cancela-
tion are the same complained Of by plaintiff
HEARING NEW CASES.
When the proceedings before the
Harbor Commissioners We're opened
yesterday in the ferry building there
We're very few persons present with the
exception of the commissioners, their
attorney and attaches of the board and
newspaper men. Attorney ]. b. Rein
stein was present and paid strict at
tention TO what was done In one case
and then went away. He took the
ground in an answer TO the citations to
his clients TO appear that the board had
no Jurisdiction to investigate or regu-
late sales that do not take place on
the property of the State and also de-
MED any charge of violation of the
Woodward law by refusal % sell per-
ishable products on the State wharves
The denial in the case of each firm
cited to appear was Identical in sub
stance and was as follows:
board against said firm of violation Of the law
referred 20 in said charge by refusal to sell
perishable products at the place Of business OF
said firm the said firm denies the right ju-
risdiction Of said board 20 investigate or regu-
late sales not on the property OF the State Of
If your board has any charge Of violation OF
said law by a refusal Of the said firm to sell
charge and are prepared answer 1t upon the
production Of such a charge.
Secretary Foy called aloud the names
Of the parties that were cited to ap-
pear. No one answered.
Attorney Reinstein went on reading
legal documents and made no response
His attitude in behalf of the wholesale
produce men was outlined by the an
swer that had been submitted by him
in writing for each of the firms. No
testimony was brought in relative to
selling or refusing to sell perishable
products on the State wharves. Only
two witnesses appeared. These were
Nick Fundas, a retail dealer in pro-
duce on Third street, anc ]. D. Graves
Of 122 Ninth street
Fundas testified in accordance with
the statements made by him IN an affi-
davit filed last week. The allegations
contained in the affidavit of Fundas and
also the affidavit Of Graves were made
the basis Of specific charges relative to
the refusal Of wholesale dealers to sell
perishable products in their places of
business TO Fundas and Graves on the
ground that these two persons were
not members of the Retail Fruit Deal
ers' Association.
Fundas testified that he had been
refused goods for which he was ready
to pay the cash price at the stores of
@. Berti & Co.. Garcia & Maggini and
Mitchell & GoodaIl. Graves testified
to a like experience at the store Of
Ivancovich & Co.
The board directed Secretary Foy, in
each case. to call for each OF the de-
PENDANTS to come before the board and
also TO inquire if any one desired to
cross-examine the witnesses. No one
responded to these invitations.
The commissioners settled down to
the consideration of what they should
do. They promptly revoked the selling
permits Of the several firms named in
the foregoing. They also instructed
Attorney Davis and Secretary Foy and
the chief wharfinger to carry into effect
the orders OF the board and prevent any
of the firms whose selling permits were
revoked from doing any more business
on the wharves of the State in this
city.
Complaints against other wholesalers
who are still selling perishabla products
on the State wharves will probably be
filed soon. The entire matter will be
fought out ultimately in the courts.