The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1906-12-22

scheme been allowed 10 go through ii
might have been necessary to take the
evidence from a second generation of
witnesses.
Adjournment was taken TO Wednes-
day morning, at which time the defense
VIII interrogate the grand jurors as 10
bias. This VIII consume two or three
days. Then demurrer viii be submitted
and argued. All this it is expected. viii
require less than a week. Unless At
torney Ach pops up with some self
patented device for further delay the
case viii then go to trial.
Counsel for both Ruef and Schmitz
Joined in a general assault upon the
bench during the afternoon. but Judge
Dunno with one stroke swept them
aside. Attorneys Campbell and Drew
were on hand in behalf Of the Mayor,
while Ach and Shortridge were present
for the boss. Campbell began the dis
cussion by repeating the bluff that the
Mayor would waive all his rights that
he might at once plead not guilty and
80 to trial Judge Dunno priczed the
bubble.
Mr.. Campbell" he said. you can
not blow hot and blow cold In the
very nature Of this case you cannot
separate these two defendants. They
have been charged Jointly and have
appeared jointly"
but our client is the mayor OF the
city" said Campbell, and we desire
1T makes no difference who your
client is. Before this court he holds
no position other than any one else"
FORTY YEARS, SAYS ACH
Tt was at the close of the proceed
IS that Judge Dunno informed Ach
Al az all the testimony presented would
made applicable to the five indict-
Vents IT had been the plan of the
defense 10 90 through the tedious
process OF the last week five consecutive
times. Ach protested against the rul-
ing.
1T viii save a great deal Of time"
explained the Judge.
Il am here to look after the interests
OF my client" replied Ach. and 1 don't
care # the trial takes forty years.
The forty-year limit was encourage
ing to those who had spent the last
Few weeks in court. as the impression
had gained ground that proceedings
would END only with the century
The grafters surpassed all their
former bounds yesterday when they re-
CURED the attendance in court of Mrs.
Rose Livingston. wife Of n. A Lev
iugston of the Grand Jury. They
sought TO prove that in a converse
tiOn with a friend Mrs. Levingston had
said that her husband had a grievance
against RGef and Schmitz Mrs. Lev
ingston made denial from the stand.
TX was but an example of the extreme
measures TO which the crowned kings
Of the LOouers' League would go. The
allegation was not only false but even
II true the defense knew that il could
not properly come before the court.
Just the show the court that no point
was too wild for him TO urge, Attorney
Ach Of counsel for Ruef made a demand
that he be allowed TO force witnesses
10 divulge the testimony they had given
before the Grand Jury. The demand
a IS cast aside by the judge.
HENEY ON THE STAND
z. J. Narchand Of French restaurant
fame was the first witness of the day
he was but briefly interrogated. H.
". Hutton, formerly of the Police Com
mission: Dr. Percival Dolman, subpoena
server for the Grand Jury; Oscar Ken
DAN. an assistant of Heney. and Dent
Robert Of the Examiner were required
TO answer a few questions Of no i'm
pOrtance
Jonas Lyman. the janitor Of Mowry
Hall. testified that Grand Juror Lev
ingston had referred to Schmitz and
Ruef as grafters a year ago.
II. II. Young. a member Of the Grand
jury explained that he was withdrawn
from the jury room when the French
restaurant case was under considera-
tion. as ne had previous knowledge of
the matter. He subsequently, appeared
before the jury as witness.
Heney was placed on the stand just
before adjournment The people in
the court room sat Up expectant.
Mr.. Heney. have you drawn your
salary as assistant district attorney"
asked Ach.
That's my business" replied Heney.
sod h.z
come to what the auditors thought
would be the star event OF the day
ADLER DEMURRER is ARGUED
The demurrer IN the case Of Nathan
NJ Adler. charged with perjury in his
testimony before the Grand Jury re-
latIng 70 the French restaurant CRAFTS,
was argued yesterday afternoon before
Judge LaWlOr. who refused to consider
one of the two grounds for dismissal
urged by Attorney Marcus Rosentha1
a nd took the other under considera-
- on until Monday morning at 10
O'clock.
Rosenthars first point was that the
Indictment against Adler charges him
with two distinct perjuries. as IT al
leges that he made false statements
concerning two transactions during the
course Of his testimony. while the
statutes provide that separate indict-
nents must be returned for separate
statements. This contention was de-
clared by Judge LawlOr TO be without
merit Rosenthsl also argued that the
testimony in which Adler is alleged TO
have committed perjury was not ma
terial to the issue. as II would not
strengthen or weaken the case against
either Schmitz or Ruef II II were in
troduced IN the course of their trials.
He also declared that If an attempt
was made 10 introduce Adler's test
1nonv at the trial It could be ruled out
on the ground Of incompetency and
frrelevancy.
Assistant District Attorney O'Gara
asserted that there We're two ways of
asserting that testimony taken before
an Indictment was material. one being
by a general allegation without setting
forth the state OF the evidence, and the
other by undertaking TO show by the
allegations IN the indictment that the
testimony taken was material to the
hard He declared that either