The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1908-01-16
MAY FREE SCHMITZ
APPELLATE COURT FINDS HIS IN.
DIcTMENT INVALID.
HIS ACT WAS NO CRIME
Abe Ruef, Former Boss of Frisco, Also
Benefited by Decision-eoth
Entitled to Release on
Bail.

san Francisco The district court
of appeals handed iewn a decision
Thursday setting aside the judgment
in the case of former Mayor Eugene
E. Schmitz, convicted Of extortion in
the French restaurant case. Abe Ruef
also benefits by the ruling of the up
per court, for, according to its deci-
sion, he pleaded guilty to an act that
was no offense against the laws OF the
state.
According to the appellate Judges
the compelling of French restaurants
to pay fees" to Abe Ruef was not a
crime, even though Ruef divided the
fees" with the mayor
After discussing the point the court
reversed the judgment against
Schmitz on the ground that no acts
constituting a crime had been proved
against him. Abe Ruef, who pleaded
guilty to extorting money from the
French restaurants, is therefore
equally guiltless.
In passing upon the legality of the
indictment the appellate court said:
The indictment is claimed to be in
valid for two reasons: First, that it
does not allege any threat to injure
property, and, second, it does not al
lege that the threat was to do an I'M
lawful injury"
The gist of that portion of the de-
cision relating to the allegation that
there was no threat to injure property
is contained in the following SEN
tence:
There is no allegation as to any
threat to injure any business in direct
terms, but only the threat to prevent
the parties from obtaining license to
sell liquor" A license to sell liquor
is not property in the ordinary sense
Of the word, says the court.
Commenting on the second conten-
ton of Schmitz's attorneys that there
was no threat to do unlawful injury
the court declares:
I'VE are clearly Of the opinion that
the indictment is insufficient, because
it does not allege nor show that the
specific injury threatened was an un-
lawful injury" 1t is not an unlawful
act, reasons the court, to threaten to
hold up the licenses Of the restaurant
keepers or actually to do so.
Entitled to Release on Bail.
The decision will stop the French
restaurant cases, and pending charges
of eXtortion against Schmitz and Ruef
must be dismissed. Both are now en-
titled to release on bail. If they OBJ
tain the necessary bondsmen they can
remain at liberty until such time as
jury finds them guilty on one of
the indictments charging them with
receiving bribes from corporations.
Owing to the number of cases against
them the bail, figured at $4,000 a
case, would reach an enormous figure.
Can't Get Out for so Days.
Schmitz and Ruef cannot take ad-
vantage of the decision for 60 days
The prosecution has 20 days in which
to ask for a rehearing. Then the ap-
pellate court will have ten days to
consider the application. When that
is done the prosecution will go
through the same procedure in the
supreme court, which will take the
same length of time. Consequently
Schmitz and Ruef will still be kept
in the county Jail for two months at
least.
The news Of the decision of the ap-
peIlate court spread rapidly over the
city, causing CONSERVATION in some
quarters and delight in others.