The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1908-02-28
Judge DoOling Denies Motion 10
Drop Action Against Older
and Crothers
Cook Attacks Motives of Troy
in Swearing TO Libel COM
pIaint Here
Ruef TO Be Summoned as a Wit
ness Concerning Projected
Water Deal

Pleading embarrassment on account
Of the absence of William S. Tevis,
the complaining witness in the Tevis-
Bulletin criminal libel suit. Assistant
District Attorney William Hof Cook
.. sought to have the proceedings
stopped yesterday morning by Judge
Dooling. sitting for Judge Dunno of
, the superior court. Dooling, after
listening TO Cook. denied the motion
on the grounds that the motives of
E. P. E. Troy, who swore to the COM
plsint against Crothers and Older,
proprietor and managing editor of the
Bulletin. were not at all material in the
case. as il was before the superior
court in due form. and further that
? information filed by the district attor-
ney showed that q public offense had
heen committed and the defendants
charged with the offense.
INVESTIGATION COURTED
so far as the question OF collusion
IS concerned the defendant offers
no objections" interrupted Attorney
Roche. a full, thorough and complete
investigation is courted. But we do
object TO the district attorney going
into a collateral proceeding for the
purpose OF ascerfaining for what pur-'
pose the witness upon the stand swore
10 this complaint in the police court,
unless it be for the purpose Of showing
some connection between the prosecut-
ing witness and -defandants in this
case or for the purpose of showing that
this prosecution was brought about BY
the. defendants collusion. So far as
that question is concerned in this case,
We are perfectly willing that it be in
vestigated at this time by the district
attorney"
IF grant this motion to dismiss the
case the decision would be a bar TO
further prosecution on the same de-
fense." said Judge Dooling. Thus. the
defendants would 90 free when nothing
had been adjudicated as TO the guilt Of
the defendant, and as the defendant is
not demanding that the charge be dis
missed I see no reason why the trial
should not proceed Therefore order
that it proceed"
TROY DENOUNCEs TEvIs
Following this. E. P. z. Troy was
placed on the witness stand and after
refusing several times to answer ques-
tions put to him by Cook, who sought
10 impugn the formers motive and
conduct, until given permission to
making statements relative to a con
versstion between himself and Cook in
the lstter's once.
Every question you directed at me
At that time was for the purpose of
inpugning by motives in this case"
said Troy Because Of that have no
confidence in you You also stated an
.untruth a moment ago in saying that
you put questions to me in your Office
as 10 the testimony in this case"
L don't care for your reasons at ALL
said Cook. y have no confidence in
you. either"
7 ask that this witness be instructed
10 state upon whose advice he swore to
this complaint" continued Cook.
On the order OF the court Troy said
Daniel Murphy Of the water commit
tee OF the board OF supervisors had
suggested that the prosecution Of Older
and Crothers would be a good means
OF bringing before the people of San
Francisco fun information relative to
the water question. the most vital issue
before the municipality.
You have just stated that you did
not have authority from Lloyd Tevis |
10 act for him." continued Cook.
Lloyd Tevis is the most unscrupu-
lous scoundrel that ever lived in Cali |
fornia," replied Troy. He would stoop
10 rob in horse deal He has been
corrupt every day in his life and has
never earned an honest dollar"
RUFF TO BE WITNESS
The statements on the part of Hon /
Cook to the effect that he was greatly |
embarrassed by the absence Of Tevis I
follows his statements on the day be-
fore that Tevis' presence was not
necessary. in that II a bribe had been |
offered to Ruef to foist the Bay Cities /
water compsny's scheme upon San |
Francisco. Ruef could himself explain I
that In view OF this Judge Dooling
ordered that Ruef be produced.
Touching upon this phase of the
case. Matt L Sullivan Of the defense in
addressing the court said:
We came here with our client to
be tried understanding that there was
obviously no collusion in the case; that
there was sufficient evidence to Justify
the publication OF the article which re-