The San Francisco call., 1907-06-11

court finally gave the floor to Judge
Fairall who presented the first argu-
n1ent for the defense. But before the
defense submitted its argument Heney
was permitted to tell the court what
the prosecution hoped to prove by the
testimony of the small fry restaura-
teurs.
Fairall asked for and obtained the
banishment of the jury to protect It's
sensitive ears from the details of
nasty little holdup that he hoped to
keep out of the record. but which he
could not prevent Heney exposing in
his argument.
SIMILAR ACTS OF ExTORTION
Heney told the court that the prose-
cution expected to prove by Mailhe-
buau, Blanco and Pons the completion
of similar and virtually simultaneous
acts of extortion by Schmitz and Ruef.
He insisted that the testimony of Mall
hebuau was admissible in any event,
because he was to be party to the
original $1,000 fee which Loupy at
tempted to negotiate Mailhebuau
turned Loupy down, but, acting on the
hint. hurried around to Ruef and
bought protection for himself. Blanco
and Pons for $500 a year. Mailhebuau,
Heney said, had told Ruef that he could
not afford to pay $500 a year, and Ruef
very considerably dispensed his favor
at the figure which the restaurant man
said was his limit.
Further proof OF the mythical char
acter Of the French restaurant keepers
association was, said Heney. wrapped
I'D in the testimony Mailhebuau would
give. When Mailhebuau delivered the
first $500 in currency as directed Ruef
said:
You now belong to the French res
taurant keepers association You go
and tell Priet that you are in it.
BY the proof of acts not covered by
the Indictment, the prosecution con-
tended it would establish the con-
spiracy by proving the existence of a
well oiled and smoothly working ma
chine for holding up men who were
compelled to seek liquor licenses.
Heney said that, if permitted. the
prosecution would prove that Schmitz
Instructed ex-Police Commissioner
Thomas Reagan to hold up the license
of Fishback & Bacon, proprietors of
resort frequented by women. The
mayors reason was that the proprietors
had held bet against him.
MAYORS CHANGE OF MIND
Again, the mayor wanted Reagan to
attack the license for Leonhardt's, a
similar resort near the park. After
Reagan had got his campaign of in
! yestigation well under way, the mayor
took breakfast at Leonhardt's and then
advised Reagan that he need not fur
| ther trouble himself in the matter.
| At about the same time Schmitz
| wanted Reagan to hold up the license
| for Techau Tavern. He told Reagan
| that women frequented the place and
that it should be closed. Reagan in
yestigated and found the place not as
represented by the mayor, who then
said to the commissioner:
We'll, it's all right now, Tom. They
were trying to run my friend Morrison
out of the business. It's all right now
Heney's resume of what he proposed
proving by these witnesses included a
division of the rakeoff from the pro
ceeds of the municipal brothel at sec
Jackson street, and the division by
Ruef and Schmitz of a weekly dividend
from the resort at 712 Pacific street
FAIRALL's CONTENTION
Judge Fairall. for the defense, argued
that evidence of similar offenses was
1 not generally admissible. on the ground
that the defendant should not be called
upon to defend against something with
which he had not been charged. There
were, he said. some exceptions. Such
i evidence was admissible in certain
classes of cases to show intent or es-
tablish Identity. Such evidence. he con-
tended was not admissible in an ex-
tortion case to prove knowledge ol
| identity. because it was unnecessary
The only possible ground for its ad.
mission would be to show intent. In
tent could not be shown, he argued
nor could it be rebutted- He contendet
further that the question of intent wa,
! not involved, because the statute cover.
ing this particular crime was silent Al
to intent and that in the indictment
against Schmitz there was no inten,