The Parma herald. (Parma, Idaho) 1903-1917, 1908-01-18
vEaolor DECLARED vo'c.
Court Of Appeals Rsvsrsss Dse'''o"
in Schmi'x Case

Court Of Appeals nsseFss"
in Schmi'x Case
San Francisco, Jan. 10.-"The 1ndg'
,nsot and order are reversed and the
trial court is directed to sustain the 40
murrer to the Indictment and discharge
tha defendant az to such Indictment.
This was the decision handed down
yesterday by the District Court Of Ap-
peais reversing the Judgment OF the
trial court in the case OF ex-hsyo1
schmlts. sentenced to five years In San
ouentin on the charge OF extortion
bsusd upon the alleged holding up
Of thu French restaurants In the matter
of liquor licenses and setting aside the
Indictment on which his conviction was
had.
Thu tTiel was made notable by the
appearance Of Abraham Ruef, the po-
litjcsl dictator who controlled the
municipal administration, and practi-
cally placed Gchmitx In office, as q
witness asainst the mayor, testifying
thai be had paid to Echmitz 1880 Of
the IS, 900 received by Raef from the
French restaurants, In order that
schmitx would permit the board OF
police commissioner to issue liquor IL
csnses to them. Ruef had, previous
to this, dramatically pleaded guilty to
the same charge, at the same time
making the enigmatical statement that
he was innocent.
On the ground that the Indictment
did not show that 4 public offense was
because it did not allege
any threat to injure property, the court
holding that liquor license was not
property. bat mere permission; that a
threat to prevent the obtaining of q
liquor license by one who had no au-
thority In the premises did not consti-
tute threat against property, and be-
cause Of numerous errors in the ruling
of the trial judge-Super or Judge
Frank H. Dunne--the Appellate court
held that the indictment was invalid
and the conviction null and void. In
effect, the court held that Schmitz was
not given fair and impartial trial.
While the decision was not wholly
a surprise. even to the prosecution, and
had been freely predicted by Schmitx's
friends Tor come time, it did not fail to
cause something OF q sensation and was
the sole topic of conversation yesterday.
The decision will have the effect OF
invslidsting the other four indictments
charging Schmitz as we'll as Ruef with
extortion, and renders void the plea of
guilty made by Ruef, al the Appellate
court held that no crime was commit
ted.
By this reversal it is feared that the
prosecution has lost its hold upon Ruef.
and it was freely predicted last night
that the former political boss would
now refuse all overtures of immunity,
wholly or in part, to testify in the
bribery-graft cases, and fight every in
dictment against him.
Although the court ordered Schmitz
from custody on the extor-
tion indictments, neither Schmitx nor
Ruef can take advantage OF the reversal
for go days, and even then there is
little likelihood that either of them
will be able to get the enormous bail
required for their release. There are
still pending against Ruef 1873 indict-
ments charging bribery, on which the
total ball is s1,170,000, and Schmitz
would have to get bonds for $3.50, 900
on the indictments that remain against
him. The prosecution has 20 days in
which to ask the Appellate court for
rehearing Of the appeal. and the court
has 10 days in which to decide the mo-
ton. The appeal would then 20 TO the
supreme court, where the same length
OF time would be required before the
decision of yesterday can go into effect