Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1908-02-06
LANTERMAN
INDICTMENT
HOLDS GOOD
MOTION TO SET ASIDE GRAND
JURY ACTION DENIED
FORMER coRoNER's COUNSEL TO
PRESENT DEMURRERs
Grand Jurors Appear in Court for Ex-
animation and All Are Excused
After Four Are Cues
TONED


toned
The motions to set aside the two IN
dictments returned by the grand jury
against DR.. r. S. Lanterman, former
coroner, were yesterday denied by
Judge Conrey in the superior court,
and the challenges of the grand jury
as a whole and of the jurors individual
ly were disallowed. This morning at
10 o'clock was set as the time for the
consideration by the court or de-
murrers to the indictments which the
defendants counsel propose to present.
All members of the grand jury were
present in court when the session pc
gan. Lanterman was also present anu
was represented by Earl Rogers, Paul
Schenck and ]. w. Mckinley, while
Major C. c. McComas represented the
district attorneys office. After -FOUR
of the jurdors had been examined all
were excused, as it became quite evil
dent that nothing which would mate
rally aid the defendant could De
gained through further investigation
along this line.
Concerning the qualifications of the
Jurors to act as members of the BODY
the court informed Lanterman's coun-
sci. after three members had been ex-
amined that it was unnecessary to IN
terrogate the men, as all had been ex-
amined in this regard before they were
sworn in. The examination was then
confined to the question whether the
members were prejudiced at the time
the indictments were returned.
Foreman Answers Questions
The first Juror to be examined was
I. B. Newton, foreman of the grand
Jury. He was asked if p. H. Bresee
had been examined by the jury and his
name not placed on the indictments
Newton said he knew some person
named Bresee had appeared before the
Jury to testify, but could not remem-
Der whether it was the man referred
to, stating however that Secretary
Conger had the minutes and coulo
give the information.
"You were familiar with the fact
that defendant had committed acts
which might lead to the forfeiture OF
his Officer" asked Attorney Rogers.
"I did not know he would have tc
forfeit his Office" said Newton. II hac
read of the acts, however, and believed
there must be some truth in them, be-
cause they were generally circulated
"Were you not led to make that In
vestigation by this publication and no
toriety?"
mo"
you, however, did believe hin
guilty of violations of the law witt
respect to the conduct of his Officer"
mo-
"Were you biased or prejudiced al
the time of the returning of these in
dictments?"
mo" said Newton. and added HI
had never met Lanterman and did no
know him now.
A. H. Conger, who acted as secre
tary for the grand jury was called ant
exhibited the record of the proceeding
before the body. The investigation b!
the jury was made under three heads
rendering false statements of accounts
| official acts while in office and receiV'
ing bids from undertakers.
Tells Who Was Present
During your sessions who was pres
ent while you were investigating
asked Rogers
mo one except the grand jurors, the
witnesses and the representative o.
the district attorneys office" sale
Conger.
He said there were more than on,
member of the district attorneys staff
present at times. blu not while the
matter was being voted on or when the
11VeStlBdllOll CONClCd w hS
ments in question were being consid
cred.
Conger stated he did not believe any
of the deputy district attorneys took
shorthand notes of the proceedings anC
did no believe G. Ray Horton ever
made any notes during the investiga
ton.
Conger said he had no opinion con.
corning DIR. Lanterman's actions prio
- I'M, Tho writ
ten on the indictments, he said, con-
stituted all the witnesses who had ties.
| titled during the investigation, which
was conducted by Deputy District At
torney Paul Mccormick, who ques
| toned all witnesses.
Leonard Merrill, another member Of
| the jury, said he had read the newspa'
per accounts of Lanterman's actions
| before the investigation was begun
but was not biased in his opinion, MOI
was he unfriendly toward the former
| coroner.
Horton, he said, came to the door o.
| the jury room once and called for the
| foreman, who returned after shor
| talk.
Formed No Opinion
George II. Peck said he had formed
no opinion concerning the coroner Of
his office prior to the investigation anC
nad READ HotnlHS cohcerHlhS lHe that
| ter
Henry S. Jones said the newspaper
! articles he had read created no opinion
| in his mind concerning Lanterman',
actions before the investigation wal
| made.
81 observe by the record" said At
| torney Rogers, that Captain Fred
| ericks was present and made a state
ment during the investigation. Is tina
right?"
| 81 don't think Fredericks was pres
ent at any time during the investiga
tion,' replied Jones.
Attorney Rogers said he did not car
to further examine the jurors, and al
were excused. He asked that the rec
ord covering the summoning of tn
jurors, listing of their names and th'
| \ 0f I,n nd he MI