The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1907-10-31
ABBOTT REFUSES
To TESTIFY IN
THE FORD TRIAL
Declines to Answer Upon
the Advice of His
Attorneys
CALLED FOR PURPOSE
Assistant Counsel of United
Railroads Must Give
II Real Reason
EXPLODES ONE STORY
Heney Shows Money From
Mint Was Not to Pay
Interest
ExPLoDES ONE STORY

The smoIdering fres of the Ford
krisl broke into fame yesterday after
noon, when the prosecution called
William NJ. Abbott to the stand.
Abbott. who is assistant general coun-
sel of the United Railroads, took the
witness chair amid the protests of the
attorneys for the defense, and an ar
gument followed which consumed the
remainder of the session. The argu-
snent which the action of the prosecu-
sion precipitated led 70 heated clashes
between Heney and Attorney Lewis
F. Byington of the defense. Heney
1ung IL Byington's face his failure TO
prosecute Abe Ruef while district at
torney, and Byington retorted with
spirit that he dehed any man TO find
q biemish on his record. Judge Lawlor
calmed the rising storm and announced
that he would decide today whether
Abbott could refuse TO testify on the
grounds that he had been indicted with
Ford.
The other sensation OF the day oc-
CURED when the prosecution exploded
the remarkable theory which the de-
fense attempted to set up. to the effect
that the s2oo.ooO withdrawn from the
mint by Ford had been shipped back 10
New York to pay interest on the bonds
OF the United Railroads With few
well directed questions Heney showed
that the interest on the bonds had
never been paid in currency and that
the 100000 which passed into Ford
possession was meyer used for that pur-
pose
ABBOTT REFUSES TO TESTIFY
Il was clear at the outset that the
prosecution had called Abbott with no
expectation that he would testify. The
prosecution oontended that the fact
that Abbott had been indicted did not
In Itself disqualify him IS witness.
6eney argued that ss Abbott was not
q defendant in the case at issue he
could with al propriety he called as 4
1-itness. The object. Of course. was to
eorce Abbott 70 sdn1it that his refusal
70 testify was based on the grounds
that he might incriminste himself Had
be urged this plea that would have
Been the end Of the matter. The de-
tsnse recognized the danger Of such
kn admission and urged desperately the
Plea that Abbott could refuse to an
bwer simply on the grounds that he
bad been indicted on q charge Identical
F1th that against Ford
Abbott answered the first questions
Addressed 70 him, which had merely 10
Eo with HIS name and occupation.
Eeney then asked.
Did you. on the 18th day OF May.
lso6. 80 with TREY L Ford to the
brited States rnint?"
Esri Rogers was on his feet In an
kstArt
u advise Mr. Abbott. not TO an
lyer.~ he said.
IT refuse TO answer repeated Alb
kett
~on what grounds" inquired Heney.
'cn advice Of counsel" answered Alb
bott
THAT is not SUFFICIENT, your honor
hstd Heney, addressing Judge Lavlor.
The court then called on both sides
Ind a torrid debate ensued
I'VE have been denounced by tn. de-
tense for not calling Abe Ruef to the
stand" said Heney. "and he was in
tioted together with Abbott and Ford.
the calling of Abbott is identical"
MUST GIVE TRUE REASON
EeDey then cited the sstice case in
Fhch the supreme court OF California
hell that IN an action where two men
had been separately indicted for a sim
har snense. one could be called as q
t7ltneAs against the other, each, of
tourse. reserving his constitutional
tight torefuse to answer on the ground
hat he night incriminste himself. The
boncludiny paragraph Of this decision
lays that N q case where the two men
tsd been sointly indicted 1T would
seem" that the same rule would apply.
The defense cited Michigan deci-
ZION which ceDtradicted the California
ruling. Judse Lawlor reserved his
decision until today, but intimsted that
be would follow the California preoe-
lent This viii force Abbott to shift
kis position and give as a reason for
ais refusal to answer an admission
hat be might inerAminste himself
This admission is all that the prose