Los Angeles herald., 1907-06-08

granted. A year later in January
1906, Malfanti came around to collect
the second installment of the $4,000
and the witness refused to pay it.
"Why?" demanded Heney. And over
the objection of the defense Adler an
swered:
Because then was out of debt and
wasn't afraid any more"
"Take the Witness" said Heney.
"You refused to make the second
payment, but your license wasn't re-
voked, was it? You got it renewed
Just the same as the one before, when
you paid?" asked Campbell.
THAT is true" confessed Adler.
"And Mr.. Ruef never uttered to you
threat that you would lose your
license unless you employed him?"
HE never did"
Rosenthal Testifies
Attorney Marcus Rosenthal was
called by the state. He testified that
his client, Adler, sought his advice rel
ative to the holding up of the Bay
States license in the fall of 1904. He
appeared with Adler before the police
commission, but the commissioners
would not permit him to speak. After
this meeting" he said, 81 told Mr.. Ad-
Ter it was useless for him to appeal to
the courts because there could be no
review of any act of the police COM
mission under our law, which consider
more Russian than American. I told
him that in view Of the. way things
had been going on for the last several
years there was only one man who
could help him in his extreme need
his business was threatened with ruin
ation-and that man was Mr.. Ruef. I
told him I would withdraw from the
case because didn't want him to waste
his money in a fee to me when I
couldn't do him any good"
Cross-examination of Mr.. Rosenthal
adduced no new facts.
The prosecution called Michel de Bret,
before the fire a partner of Pierre Priet
in the ownership of Marchand's res
taurant. He said that in the begin
ming of 1905 Jean Loupy broached to
him the employment of Ruef to look
out for their license interests. Then
the special meeting of the police board
was held and from it Loupy returned
saying the commissioners would not
listen to his attorney, Rosenthal. The
witness partner, Priet, decided then to
see Ruef. He did so and returned with
the report that Ruef would take their
cases for $4,000, $4,000 down and $4,000
in one year, Priet saying that Ruef
would not accept checks or gold, but
only currency, and would give no re-
ceipt.
Was Agent Only
In tilt between Mr. Heney and Mr.
Campbell at this point over the admis-
sion of conversations between De Bret
and Priet, the prosecution claimed that
Priet merely became the agent for the
collection of the money. This was
secuted by the defense, who claimed
Priee ewas the agent of the restaurateurs
and of them only. Priet, whose name
appears as a signature to the contract
alleged between him and Ruef, is dead.
Over this disputed point counsel argued
at length, the prosecution claiming the
right to establish the Ruef agency of
Priet by the testimony of De Bret. The
court inclined to stand with the de-
fense against this contention. Ad-
tournament was taken at IL o'clock un-
til 2 to enable the looking up and sub
mission of authorities by both sides.
Throughout the two-hour noon re-
cess scores of persons to whom the
bailiffs refused permission to remain
in the auditorium stood on the syna-
gogue steps or lounged on the side
walk in Bush street, waiting for court
to reconvene. By 1 o'cloc.. the crowd
was hammering on the big doors and
good naturedly demanding admittance
When the doors were finally opened al
1870 the rush of feet into the audience
room fairly ratified the windows. Sew
eral persons lost their footing on the
stairs and were in danger of being
hurt.
Interest Intensified
Interest in the trial is intensified daily
by anticipation of Ruef's appearance
as the star witness for the state.
At the commencement of the after
noon session, Assistant District Attor-
ney Heney, District Attorney Langdon
Rudolph Spreckels and Joseph
Dwyer followed each other down the
long aisle to the counsel table, each
bearing an armful of law books which
they deposited on the table.
Mr.. Heney argued at length the right
of the prosecution to show by Michel
de Bret what the dead Priet had told
him Ruef had told Priet-in order to
establish before the jury the agency oi
Priet in representation of Ruef, the
point being that the acts of the agent
are the acts of the principal, and il
Ruef was guilty Schmitz must be
guilty.
Mr.. Campbell, replying, said Mr.
Heney was arguing in the air. He
contended that Priet himself was the
only person whose testimony would be
competent as to what he told De Bret
that Ruef had told him.
In support of his contention, coinci-
dentally urged that the prosecution ha6
the right to establish the fact OF
! agency by circumstantiai testimony