The San Francisco call., 1908-03-08
JUDGE dunno ALSO
HOUTS RUFPS AID
Ach's Endless Chain Affidavit
Factory Has Another Day
of Enforced IdIenesS
Supreme Court to Render De-
cision In Schnlitz Appellate
Court Case Tomorrow

Judge Frank H Dunno furnished
another disappointment yesterday for
Abe Ruef and his attorneys. Like
Chief Of Police Biggy on the day be-
fore Judge Dunno failed 10 appear at
Henry Ach's Office in the Kohl build
ing in response TO the subpoena COM
manding him to attend proceedings
before a notary public and make a
deposition concerning his knowledge
Of Ruefs immunity contract.
Under an order from Judge Buck s
department Of the superior court
Judge Dunno was to have appeared
at Ach's Office at 10 o'clock yesterday
morning, or at least Ruef and his at
torneys and State Senator Gus Hart
man, Ruefs official notary public,
thought he was TO appear. Judge
Dunno, however, didn't consider it
worth while TO take the time or
trouble, either, TO attend or explain
the delinquency and the machinery of
the Ruef affidavit factory had day
OF.
As on the preceding day. when Ruef
and his attorneys and the notary
waited in vain for Chief Biggy, the
visitor they expected yesterday morn
ing failed to arrive. Now Ach is won
dering whether Distgict Attorney
Langdon. who is under similar sub
pena for Monday morning. will treat
the summons with as little courtesy
as have Biggy and Judge Dunno.
PLAN CONTEMPT ACTION
owing TO the absence of Judge
Buck no steps were taken by Ruefs
attorneys yesterday to procure an or
der citing Chief Biggy to appear in
court and show cause why he failed
TO obey the subpoena issued last week.
A-h -
would be taken IN the case Of both
Chief Biggy and Judge Dunno Mon
day morning and if Ach has his way
Judge Dunno will be forced TO answer
for contempt of the very court of
which he is a judge. Should Langdon.
Spreckels. Burns and Heney treat the
matter as Chief Biggy and Judge
Dunno have Ach viii be kept busy all
week getting his prospective contempt
actions under way.
The decision Of the supreme court on
the application of the prosecution for
& rehearing of the Schmitz appeal.
which led to a reversal of Schmitz'
conviction by the appellate court in
the extortion case in which the former
mayor was found guilty. probably viii
be nled tomorrow morning. The stat
Etes provide that decision of the
appellate court becomes final sixty
days after it IS handed down by that
court, and that the decision of the SUI
prelne court on petition for rehear-
ing must be given within that time
The sixty days allowed for the deci-'
sion in the Schmitz case expires tomor-
row, and il the supreme court de-
termines to reopen the case and listen
to arguments on the question of
whether blackmail and extortion con-
stitute a crime in this state, a time
for the hearing will be announced.
RUFF TRIAL TOMORROW
Ruefs trial in the trolley bribery
case before Judge Lawlor is also
scheduled to be resumed tomorrow
morning, and the long promised afTi-
davits OF the prosecution in answer to
those fled by Ruef to support his mo-
tion 10 have his arraignment set aside
are to be presented TO the court Sew
eral delays have ensued in the prepara-
tion Of these affidavIts. but it was an
nounced by the prosecution at the last
calling of the case that it would be
ready tomorrow morning
Unouestionably it is the fear OF
revelations to be made in these affi-
davits that has caused Ruefs attor-
neys 70 turn loose their recent flood
Of affidavits in the defendants behalf
The prosecution has promised a COM
plete exposure OF everything relating
to the making and subsequent annul-
ment OF Ruefs immunity contract, to-
gether with a detailed history of all
dealings with Ruef from the inception
Df the graft prosecutions, and by fore
Btalling these disclosures by means of
Rffidavits giving his side of the story
Ruef has hoped TO discredit to some
extent the revelations which promise
to be so startling.
Ruef-s latest attack on the rroseo,,-
ton. contained in his affidavit made
public Friday night. failed to draw any
answer from the prosecution yester-
day as he had evidently hoped it
would do- The afldavit, supporting a
motion to have his plea Of guilt in the
extortion case withdrawn. was fled
yesterday before Judge Dunno, but
members Of the prosecution refused to
comment on the charges made by
Ruef that Langdon, Heney and Burns
we're guilty of subornation of perjury
Until the counter afidavits of the
prosecution are completed Ruefs
charges must go unanswered.