The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-01-10
Now Entitled to ReIcnsc.


The decision wipes out the French
restaurant cases, and pending charges
OF extortion against Schm and Ruef
must be dismissed. Both are now sn-
titled to release on bail. II they OBJ
tain the necessary bondsmen they can
remain at liberty until such time as
a jury finds them guilty on one of the
indictments charging them with re-
ceiving brtbes from corporations. Ow-
ing to the number of cases against
them. the bail figured at $4,000 q
case. would reach an enormous sum.
Schntz and Ruef canont take adj
vantage Of the decision for sixty days:
consequently they will be in the county
jail for two months at least. District
Attorney Langdon said Schmtz and
Ruef will be prosecuted on other in
dictments that are public offenses. The
decision was written by Justice Cooper
Judge Dunno Erred.
The opinion comments on Judge
Dunne's ruling, and says he erred II,
admitting hearsay evidence. I'm our
oIlnion." says Judge Cooper, .'the
cross.examination was entirely improp-
er. and was not confined to the mat
ters on which the defendant was ex-
amined in chief
This has reference to the answer
Schmitz gave in regard to the pay
ment to him of part OF the $4,000 con.
tri.uted by the restaurants.
The attorneys for Schmitz had at
the trial questioned Ruef as to wheth-
er he was testlfying in expectation OF
Immunity. Judge Dunno refused to
permit any OF these questions to be
answered. holding that they were not
proper cross-examination. The ap-
pellate court says: These rulings
were erroneous and highly prejudiced
to the defendant"
In passing upon the legality OF the
Indictment, the appellate court says
"The Indictment is claimed to b.
invalid for two reasons: First tina,
1t does not allege any threat to in.
jurs property. and second. 1t does not
allege that the threat was to do an
unlawful injury. =,
There is no allegation as to any
threat to injure any business In direc,
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"
Not Unlawful Threat.
Commenting on the second conten.
tion OF Schmitz's attorneys that there
was no threat to do unlawful injury
LIS COuIL otCldTeSs IHaI.
I've are clearly of the opinion tht
Indictment is insufficient because II
does not allege nor show that the speci.
flc injury, threatened was an unlawful
Injury.
"1t is not an unlawful act" reasons
the court, ITO threaten to hold up thc
licenses of the keepers OF
actually do so.'
Not Given Impartial Consideration.
SuperiorRsJudge Dunno. before whom
Schmitz was convicted, tonight said:4
.It Is to be regretted that the hear
ing Of this appeal, came up before q
| many indictments were returned by
the grand Jury that returned these tru.
bills. In view ofathese facts, do not
believe that the court was In the prop.
er frame of mind to give this matter
an impartial reconsideration, and decide
it strictly upon its merits. am sat
isffed that the evidence and the Law
sustained the Judgment and the ver.
dict. I will further say that the jury
which returned this verdict will be re,
membered with respect and honor II
the community long after the cour,
which set aside the verdict has beer
I.forgotten.o S8
Both schmitz and Ruef when seer
at the county jail tonight, refused tt
make any statement or comment upo,
the decision. -