The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1907-01-10
LAWYERS FOR RUFF
SUGGEST NEW
TRICKS
Claim Power to Delay Each
Indictment by Tactics
Now Used Shamelessly
JUROR LIVINGSTON
DID NOT ABUSE RUFF

Probabilities of an indefinite con-
tinuance of examination of the men,
bers of the Grand Jury were made OBJ
vious before Judge Dunno yesterday
by the associate attorney for the delay
of justice who represents Mayor
Schmtz and Abe Ruef
Attorney Shortridge said yesterday
that 1t was possible that the defense
would employ the same tactics in ques-
tioning the validity of each of the four
companion indictments as 1t had in
voked in the matter of indictment 303.
He claimed the right under the law to
do this, but added that he and his as
sociate might stipulate with the State
not to delay
Attorney ]. S. Campbell, representing
Schmitz, declined, when questioned by
the court, to say whether or not his
client would fall back on technicalities,
but he thought it possible that Schmitz
would not. However, as the matter is
before the Supreme Court, he declined
to express himself definitely.
Grand Juror Livingston was wit
ness before the court yesterday and he
denied that he had ever spoken words
of condemnation of Ruef and Schmitz.
Several witnesses called by the defense
have sworn that this juror had been
for the boss and his obedient servant.
Among those who testified for Ruef in
the Livingston matter were Mike
Dunno, William Cans and Assembly
man Beckett. Dunno had declared that
Livingston had said one day, before go
ing into the jury room, I'D be ashamed
TO tell you what we are going to do
to Ruef and Schmitz," a quotation
which the witness repudiated. Asked
what a Ley
said that it was little that was good.
He used to hang around Martin
Kelly's place." said the juror. Levings-
ton said that all he had told Beckett
was to advise him mot to get mixed up
with that man Ruef." This testimony
breaks down hopelessly a strong re-
lance of the Ruef-SchmitZ gang.
Livingston was still on the stand
when adjournment was taken. He is
yet to be cross-examined by the de-
Tense.
There was a good opportunity for
excitement which did not materialize
when Martin Stevens, the attorney. was
called as witness to testify regardin g
Foreman divers interests in Mar
Glands restaurant. Ach had called
Stevens and Assistant District Attorney
Heney took a hand in the examination.
Did you not tell Ed Marchand within
the last two months, that he would
have to pay Ruef $1,000 to get his liquor
license for the McAllister restaurant
now running?"
Stevens refused to answer on the
ground that whatever he had said came
under the head of privileged commu-
nication" between client and attorney.
He also refused to answer the next
question put by Heney as to whether
or not he had received $1,000 from Mar
chand to pay to Ruef.
Stevens was called to the stand in
the afternoon when Ach offered in evf-
dence a certified copy of the articles
of Incorporation of Marchand's, of
which corporation Foreman oliver had
held one share of incorporators' stock,
which he had directly Endorsed and re-
transferred to Mrs. Priet. After Stew
stand and stated that Oliver had had
nothing to do with the business of
the place and had received no oivi-
dends and taken no part in its affairs.
Grand Juror e. j. Gallagher was
called to the stand by Ach during the
morning session and it took an hour
be shown that this juror was perfectly
unbiased when he went on the Grand
Jury.
Adjournment was taken until Fri
day morning.
Ach has yet to call Attorney General
Webb and Superior Judge Graham. He
will prepare a set of questions which
can be put to those men for the pur-
pose of further postpenement of the
Ruef-Schmitz day of judgment