Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1907-09-24
SUPREME COURT HOLDS iNpIcT-
MENTs ARE VALID
OLIVER GRAND JURY DECLARED
LEGAL BODY
Associate Justice Mcfarland Hands
Down Only Dissenting Opinion.
Big Victory for Graft
Prosecutors
BY Associated Press.

hope of the defense In the various bribery
graft proceedings by deciding that the
Oliver grand jury which indicted many
of the men most prominent in the busi-
ness and social life of San Francisco was
and is a legal body, and that hence the
indictments returned by it are valid.
The opinion occupying nine typewrit-
ten pages, is that of Chief Justice Beatty
and Associate Justices Sloss, Angeiotti,
Henshaw, Shaw and Lorigan. Associate
Justice Mcfarland handed down dis
senting opinion.
The attorneys for Theodore v. Halsey
and Louis Glass OF the Pacific Telephone
and Telegraph company, Patrick Calhoun,
Thornwell Mutually. TREY L. Ford and
William NJ Abbott of the United Rail-
roads; Eugene DeSable, John Martin and
Frank G. Drum of the San Francisco
Gas and Electric company, and former
Mayor Schmitz and Abraham Ruefy
united in petition to the court for writs
of prohibition permanently restraining
the Judges of the superior courts from
proceeding further with the trial of the
various defendants on the ground chiefly
that the Oliver grand jury ceased to
exist by operation of law In January OF
the present year, when IA names COM
posing the list for the new grand jury
was certified by the county clerk and re-
turned to the court which drew them;
that hence all of the indictments returned
by the old body subsequent to that time
were void and had no standing in law.
Supreme Court Decides
The supreme court viewed this petition
as containing probable merit, and several
weeks ago, in response, issued an order
to the superior judges to appear and
show cause why permanent writs should
not be issued. This action famed the
hope OF the defense in an ultimate vic
tory which If gained would sweep aside
all of the legal work of the bribery graft
prosecution and reduce District Attorney
Langdon, Assistant District Attorney
Heney, Rudolph Spreckels and their asso-
ciates to three alternatives: To impanel a
| new grand jury and try to secure hum
dreds of fresh indictments, or to proceed
| against the liberated defendants by the
ordinary process of filing information, or
| to throw up their hands and quit.
| For weeks the final decision of the
highest tribunal has been awaited with q
| degree of interest that seldom has at
| tached to any criminal proceedings in
| this state. 1t was of course impossible
| to find out in advance what the court
would do. but the persistent rumor has
i been that the bench was evenly divided,
| three of the Justices favoring the pc
| titioners, three favoring the prosecution
and the chief justice standing in the
middle.
Many Conferences Held
| Many col ferences were held by the
court in chambers before today's deter
mination was reached.
| The decision upholding the Oliver grand
jury was rendered on four of the indict-
ments against Theodore v. Halsey, who
is now on trial in Judge Dmne's depart
ment for bribing supervisors in behalf of
the Pacific States Telephone and Tele-
graph company. The court decides that
there is no virtue in the contention Of
the petitioners that section 30 of the
code of civil procedure was made for
the purpose of preventing the existence
of any particular grand jury for any in
definite time That section provides as
follows:
"That persons whose names are so re-
turned shall be known as regular jurors
and shall serve for one year and until
other persons are selected and returned"
The court says 'our code of civil pro-
cedure provides (Section 241) that every
superior court, WHENEVER in the opinion
of the court public interest requires 1t
must proceed to impanel a grand jury,
and in all counties there shall be at least
one grand jury drawn and impaneled In
each year.
Nowhere unless 1t be in section 40
of the code of civil procedure, is there any
express limitation on the life Of the grand
jury so impaneled, or an implied linita-
tion except such as may be implied from
the requirement that at least one grand
jury must be impaneled in each year
When in obedience to this mandate, a
new grand jury is impaneled, the life of
the former grand jury must necessarily
end. Section 906 of the penal code pro-
vides that on the completion of the
business before them, the grand jury
must be discharged by the court, but
they are discharged by the final adjourn
ment of the court
"This section was adopted at time
when we had terms Of court AS, under
the constitution of 1879 we now have no
such terms of court and the superior
court is always open for business. there
is no such thing as a final adjournment
of the court and the quoted portion of
the section is no longer effectual."
Previous Opinion
The court further says:
1.-THE precise question here presented
as to the effect of the provisions of sec
tion q of the code of civil procedure upon
a grand jury regularly impaneled from
the list of the preceding year, was con-
sidered by this court en- banc in the year
1856 in the cases of in re Cannon So Cal
54l, and Ker- versus Wilson IL Pacific
reporter 244.
I'm the Cannon case the court in re-
ply to the claim that the grand jury
had ceased to exist for the reasons
stated and was not legal body said:
But while the statutory law fixes the
time within the year for the court to
order the selection and return OF grand
jurors liable to serve in the capacity
of grand jury and limits the time in
which they shall serve for the purpose
of drawing an impeachment OF g
grand jury 1t prescribes no specific
time for the drawing of the grand Jury
or for its official existence after 1t has
been drawn and impaneled. These the
law seems to have left to the judicial
discretion of the court, for 1t provides
that every superior court, whenever In
the opinion of the court the public In
terest must require 1t, may make an
order directing jury to be drawn
(Code Civ Proc. Sec. PAID.
"And when the proceedings put in
motion by an order made for the pur-