The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1906-12-08
All Jurors Prove
That They Have
No Bias

HAT Inere was no anti -adnllnlStra-
ton sentiment in the Grand Jury, nor
any secret oath taken to preserve in
violate the proceedings of that body
was proved on the sworn testimony of
the members at yesterdays hearing be-
tore Judge Lawlor of the cases of Su
pervisor F. P. Nicholas, accused of
/ agreeing to take a bride from Holmes
Bros, furniture dealers and Peter n.
Duffy, indicted on charge of perjury.
Attorney II. c. Fairall of Stockton for
the defendants fished with avidity to
catch a snag in the Indictment. but
! each juror declared that he had heard
the cases free from bias
The spirit of the jury was shown in
the testimony of Jeremiah Deasy. I'm
gong on the jury. he said, II felt
that would be pleased to find that
the things said against the administra-.
ton We're not true. I would have liked
to have seen the good name OF the City
saved--as sure as / am sitting on this
chair"
An attempt was made by Attorney
FairaH to discover if some blood
curdling, hair-curling oathwas not de-
manded Of the jurors within the dark.
mysterious precincts of their jury
chamberlain oath not provided for in
the codes-which was to bind the
jurors not to divulge what transpired
at the sessions of the jury. He asked
of Foreman Oliver: Were there any
additional oatlls taken by the grand
jurors in the Grand Jury room besides
the regularly administered oath in the
court when the jury was impanelede"
Assistant District Attorney Heney
interposed technical objection on the
ground that the question was not rele-
nr ms ri1I T,.1e
Iawlor oFerruled the objection and
Heney smiled
No" replied Oliver
NO oath was taken by the Jurors
not TO divulge what transpired in the
jury-room?"
No, sir" declared oliver emphatic
ally.
Was there not an agreement that if
any member should divulge anything
the jury would indict him?''
NO, SIR
Expedition was given the proceed
fngs by the stipulation voiced by the
defense that it would agree that the
testimony taken in the examination of
the grand Jurors on the Nicholas case
should apply to the Duffy case The
attorneys finished with the grand
jurors in the morning. and the court
held the time for hearing arguments
in allowance. Monday morning was
first decided on. but then it was re-
called that the Schmitz and Ruef cases
will require the presence of the attor-
neys in Judge DUNES court at that
time.
When the court opened yesterday
morning Attorney Frank J. Murphy. for
the defense. moved that the typewrit-
ten transcript of the report of the i'm
parchment of the jury be submitted
with theIcase. It was agreed that ar
n fatti he a
until some future time.
Heney then called Grand Juror James
E. Gordon to the stand. The witness
said that he had never heard of Super
visor Nicholas until the day before the
| indictment was brought, and that in
bringing the Indictment he had. acted
solely on the evidence presented
! 1t was matter of concern to Fairall
that E. j. Gallagher, the next Juror ex-
amined, should have been in the con-
tracing business and never have spok-
! en- to Rudolph Spreckeis, nor have ne
| gotiated any contracts with Spreckels
But Gallagher declared that he had not
known Spreckels, and had considered
the case at issue in manner free from
bias.
Jeremiah Deasy was next called
| Fafrall was particular to know If on
! the night on which District Attorney
I-angdon was removed by acting Mayor
! Gallagher he did not go to the house
of his son. who is In the Bond and
Warrant Clerks office, and walk with
the SON at 2 o'clock in the morning to
that office. x Deasy answered that he
did, that he had been called up on the
| telephone to inform his son of Lang
don's removal and to request his at
| tendance at the office at once. Fairall
was curious to know If Deasy had not
talked of municipal corruption while
l. "a y a a rx-ft
ness said that he had not.
81" Did you not express an opinion as
to the administration at that timer"
| Well, I didn't think it was a good
administration" replied Deasy. Then
| he continued to state that when he went
7 on the Grand Jury he had desired to
save the cityIs good name, if that were
possible In the face of the rumored
charges. of corruption. He said that
he had no bias or prejudice against
Nicholas.
I Grand Juror Rudolph Mohr testified
| that he acted impartially in the mat
ter. He was not Intercepted by Fair
all.
Another fishing journey was made by
Fairall when Juror Frank A. DwyeI
was on the stand. Were you and
Mr. Mohr not told that if you stood pat
| on an indictment you would be taken
care off" asked Nicholas attorney.
NO, sir; emphaticaiiy and POSITIVE
lly, no, sir" said Dwyer.
| After the panel had been examined
In the Nicholas matter the Duffey case
was taken up and oliver and G.. @.
Burnett, secretary of the jury, ex-
an1ined Their testimony was the
same as they gave in the Nicholas case.
Attorney Murphy then made the stip-
| ulation that the testimony offered in
the case of the Supervisor be entered
also in the case OF the janitor, and this
was agreed to. ~
The fact that Juror Wallace c. Wise
had been called as trial
juror within, year was Of
fered by the defense as a reason for
invalidating the part Wallace played
in returning the Indictment Heney
contended that the fact that Wallace
qualified when the Grand Jury was en-
paneled was sufficient to establish his
right to serve. The question will be
argued when the cases are next taxi
en- up.