The San Francisco call., 1907-06-12

OF the French restaurant licenses, anu
wanted him to stand in with Hutton
to hold UP their licenses"
: What did you say?"
II told him that the French res
taurants had been running for many
years before my administration and
that before he took any stand with
Hutton he should investigate care.
fully
'Did you tell him they were all
bad?"
IT did not"
did he report to you after his in
vestigation."
HE did. He said he had been at the
New Poodle Dog and found nothing
wrong, and that he had decided not
to vote with Hutton for the revocation
of the licenses"
Then in answer to a rapid fire Of ques-
tions Schmitz denied categorically that
Reagan had told him that sack mad
been raised by the restaurant men, and
that he had told Reagan that the
French restaurants were all bad places
and should be closed up
DIVISION OF RUEF's "FEEs"
In CROSS examination Heney imme-
diately opened up the question of the
did Ruef pay you any part OF the
$1,000 received from the French res
taurants" Heney asked.
Campbell promptly objected on the
ground 1T was not proper cross examina-
tion. Heney argued that the supreme
court had held that when the defense
had put defendant on the stand 1T
opened up the whole question. and that
the prosecution might ask any question
pertinent to the main issue. He said
that the rule was different as affecting
a defendant than in the case of any
other witness.
~On the direct examination Schmitz
faced the jury and made the responses
to the comparatively few questions
carefully and with we'll chosen words,
painstakingly emphasized. While Heney
argued his point on the rule of evil
dence raised by his first question. the
mayor watched the assistant prose,
cutor or his own boots, while he
ciasped and unclasped his hands. his
fingers beating at intervals nervous
tattoo.
CAMPBELL ENTERS OBJECTION
Campbell argued that then defense
had asked Schmitz only about CONVEX
sations with Reagan and tnat the
prosecution had no right to ask ques-
tions about his relations or, conversa-
tfons with third persons. not tsmentioned
in the direct examination or covered In
the examination in chief. He sup
ported his contention with the same
decision cited by Heney. Campbell saio:
I'VE have gone through a week in
this case and not a witness has at
tempted to show that one cent of this
money found It's way to: this defendant.
Now the people seek to examine this
defendant about something it has mot
attempted to prove In its case In chief"
Campbell argued that since Schmitz
had been examined on his own behalf
only as to alleged conversations with
Reagan, the prosecution must confine
its cross examination to the relations
between Schnsitz and Reagan.
Hsney argued that the whole case
hinged on the relations between
-Schmitz and Reagan He said II
Schmitz advised Reagan to hold up the
restaurant licenses he was guilty. II
he did not so advise Reagan he was not
guilty, according to the PROOF pro-
duced by the prosecution. Since the
essence of proof Of guilt was contained
In the proof of the relations between
zSchmitz and Reagan, Heney contended
that by denying Reagan's testimony
Schmitz opened up the whole question.
ADVISED NOT TO ANSWER
The court sustained Heney, directing
Schmitz to answer, and Campbell said:
with all respect to ,the court shall
advise my client not to answer"
II am ready to answer that question"
said Schmitz. -
Campbell said: .Mr. Witness, as your
counsel 1 advise you to refuse to an
swer that question
IT am ready to answer that ques-
tion. Mr.. Campbell" replied Schmitz,
and turning to Heney said:
never Lnew that Mr. Rnaf got anv
fee and he gave me nothing"
Did you not know that Ruef was the
attorney for the French restaurant
keepers and that he. received $4,000
from them?"
"One moment" protested Campbell.
Mr.. Witness, the advice of all yorr
counsel is that you refuse to answer
that question and all similar questions.
We submit, your honor" turning to
the court. that this is not proper
cross examination"
You may answer" said Judge Dunno
to Schmitz.
"I did not know that he was their
attorney or that he. got any fee,''
answered SchmitE.
Did Ruef not tell you at your house
that the money he gave you was one
half of what he had received from the
French restaurants?" persisted Heney.
Again Campbell advised Schmitz not
to answer and again the court told him
to answer the question.
HE did not" replied Schmitz.
Didn't Ruef pay you one-half Of the
$4,000 that was paid to him by Nal
fanti?" snapped Heney.
BARRETT BECOMES ANGRY.
Attorney Barrett leaped to his feet
his face af1ame with disappointed rage
Does your honor hold" he shouted
that there is no limit?
Take. your exception. replied the
court with no show OF choler.
Barrett shouted, II assign error
Take your seat" interrupted the
court.
|. AS Barrett subsidized. Heney asked
Schmitz:
did not Ruef, at your house. early
in 1905. give you 1880 and tell you
that 1t was one-half OF what he had
received from the French restaurants?
mo, sir"
did not Ruef give you one half
of the $500 he received from Camille
Mailhebuau at your house in January,
1902"
He did not"
Campbell punctuated each question
with advice to refuse to answer The