The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1906-12-13

objected to by the defense on the tech
meal ground that he might have served
on a trial jury during year past.
1t is contended by the defense, with
ample verbiage, that Wise was not a
competent juror under the fourth para
graph of section 1919 of the code, which
provides that a person is not qualified
to act as a juror who has been dis
charged as juror by any court of
record in this State within a year. as
provided in section 203. Section 203
was introduced during the last session
of the Legislature as a companion piece
to section 1919, but while the latter
survived the vicissitudes of legislation
the, former was killed by the Gov
errors veto. Johnson contended. on
that ground, that the particular clause
in section 1919 was nullified and could
not be applied to affect Wise's COM
potency to act.
1t developed just before the after
noon adjournment that there is doubt
existing as to whether or not Wise has
served as a juror within the year, and
this morning that question of fact will
be determined before the court. The
arguments already heard on the Wise
case have been based on the hypo-
thetical assumption that Wise has been
a juror, and the defense claims that
should he be disqualified the validity
of the entire jury would be destroyed
Before the Schmitz-Ruef force COM
menced their delay tactics yesterday
morning the Dinan-Ruef movement
was started in the usual retrograde
fashion. Chief of Police Oman was at
tended in court by his attorney, former
District Attorney Lewis F. Byington.
At respectful distance from his SUI
perior sat Detective Ed Wren. On Joint
motion of the defense and prosecution
the charges of perjury against Oman
and of conspiracy against Oman and
Ruef, who are indicted on the allega-
ton that they protected the munich
pal" brothel at $40 jackson street.
were put over to Tuesday next at 10
o'clock.
HERBERT SCHMITZ PRESENT
After those cases were out of the
way the arguments on the indictments
against the Mayor and his boss were
taken up. The pair were attended by
their joint and separate counsel-Henry
Ach. Samuel Shortridge, ]. ]. Barrett
and Campbell. Heney, Langdon and
Johnson represented the people. In the
afternoon Herbert Schmitz sat near his
accused brother and School Director
Boyle was present during the day
At times during the day there would
be sharp colloQuies between the OPP
pOSlHS dtlOTHtyS, ana 1eney
having several clashes. Part of Short
ridges time was devoted to an exhaus-
tive reading from the transcript of
the proceedings before Judge Graham
when the jury was impaneled. The
courteous Shortridge purported to find
Inconsistencies in Heney's conduct Of
the case.
Il want to make confession" said
Heney. When I took up this matter
/ knew nothing about the criminal law
of this State save what I had picked
up the night before. / had never be-
fore tried criminal case in this State"
After that Shortridge referred to his
opponent as "the learned prosecutor"
Johnson made the first argument of
the day. The force OF his argument
was that il Juror Wallace were dis
qualified it would not necessarily in
validate the indictment, Judge Lennon
having ruled in the Collins case that
while Juror Bundschu was not on the
assessment role the indictment should
stand. In reply to Ach's query, john
son said that Collins himself had
argued a point and he declared that
that man did know the law as it af-.
fected technical motion in defense of
those accused of crime-and there are
others following in his footsteps"
A substantial right - the defendants