Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1907-07-27
GLASS; FATE
WITH JURY
ARGUMENTS ARE CONCLUDED AT
5 O'CLOCK
DELMAs Is DISAPPOINTING IN
CLOSING
Big Crowd Looks for Grand Finale,
but Finish is Weak-Judge
Gives His Charge to
Jury

BY Associated Press.
SAN FRANCISCO, July 2s.-The case
against Louis Glass, first vice president
! and general manager of the Pacific
States Telephone and Telegraph COM
pany, went to the jury at o'clock this
evening.
Glass is charged with the crime OF
bribing Supervisor Charles Boxton with
$4,000 to vote against an ordinance grant
ing to the Home Telephone company q
franchise in San Francisco.
The case concluded after fourteen days
of actual trial and a day and half
of arguments by Assistant District At
torney Francis J. Heney for the people,
land T. G. Coogan and Dolphin NJ Del
mas for the defense.
The reading of Judge Lawlors charge
to the jury consumed one hour.
At its conclusion the auditorium of
Temple Israel-temporarily used as a
court room-was cleared, the jury was
given in charge of Deputy Sheriffs Ryan
and Montgomery and by them was con-
veyed in a tallyho to the Fairmont
hotel.
Mr. Glass was placed in the custody
of Deputy Sheriff Holland and presently
went to restaurant in Fillmore street
with Detective DAILY of the defense,
where the three dined.
DeImas Speaks Two Hours
| The entire morning session from 10
o'clock until a few minutes past IL was
occupied by Mr.. Delmas in the closing
argument for the defense.
1t was conceded by ALL including the
members of the prosecution, to be an
exceedingly able review and summarize
ton of the evidence, and an able in
telectual effort and a logical preserta-
ton of decided force; but those whose
familiarity with the reputation of the
leader of the Thaw defense as a forensic
giant led them to expect a really great
speech were disappointed.
Mr.. Heneys argument was in striking
contrast
1t was the judgment of able observers
that he exceeded his powerful effort in
closing for the prosecution in the Mayor
Schmitz extortion case.
He spoke without notes, and he was
at no moment at loss for words.
He combined analysis and review, in
vective and appeal, logic and denuncia-
tion and amalgamated them with the
fierce fire of tremendous energy.
Charge to Jury
Following are a few of the f7iUre-if77331
portant sections of Judge Lawlor' )
charge to the jury:
: ut is not required that there should
! be direct evidence of any expressed
t agreement of an alleged conspiracy. 1t
e is competent to prove the defendant was
party to the conspiracy for the com
mission of the crime by circumstantiaI
as well as by direct evidence"
"A common design is the essence of
conspiracy, and this may be made to
appear when the parties steadily pursue
! the same object, when acting separately
or together, by common or different
means all leading to the same unlawful
result"
while corroborating evidence must
create more than a mere suspicion it is
not required that it be absolutely con-
vincing 1t is sufficient If standing alone
it tends to connect the defendant with
the crime
1.-THE prosecution must prove beyond
a reasonable doubt First, the bribing
of Boxton; second, the connection of the
defendant with the giving of that bribe.
: Even If the brbing of Boxton is proved
to your satisfaction, still, If the prose-
cution has failed to prove the connection
of the defendant with that crime your
verdict should be not guilty."
1.-THE jury cannot find the defendant
! guilty without proof beyond reasonable
doubt that he knowingly and intention
ally paid or participated in the paying
of the bribe to Boxton, and it is not
enough to show suspicious circumstances
showing that the defendant knew that
such a bribe was paid OF intended to
|
factorily shown that he participated in
the act or advised and encouraged its
commission"
at is not sufficient for the prosecu-
ton to prove that bribery may have
been committed and that the defendant
T may have had reason to suspect it at
the time or afterward, or that he ac-
quiesced in it, or derived any advantage
from it, directly or indirectly.
Mere proof of knowledge that crime
is being committed, or is about to be
committed, is not in itself proof of the
guilt of the person having such knowl-
edge person commits no legal offense
by merely refraining from preventing a
crime Of bribery of the commission or
intended commission of which he has
knowledge.
''The failure of Louis Glass the de-
fendant in this case, to testify is not.
to be taken by this jury as the slightest
/ evidence of his guilt
at is not incumbent upon the defendant
to prove his innocence, nor is 1t incum-
bent upon him to explain suspicionable
circumstances. He has right to stand
mute and demand that the people make
the case against him beyond reason
able doubt"
Jury Locked Up
Judge Lawlor instructed the deputies
to lock the jury into IT'S suite of rooms
at the Fairmont hotel, and to allow no
one to approach the doors of the suite,
mot even the sheriff himself"
/. The jury entered upon their delibera-
tions at o'clock and at 1880, after
authority by telephone had been received
from Judge Lawlor, were given dinner
At $3.50 p. m. the attorneys and large
crowd were still waiting. No word had
been received from the court or the
bailiffs in charge of the jury.
&>-S-