Los Angeles herald., 1908-04-24
FIVE BOODLERS
GIVE TESTIMONY
FORMER SUPERVISORS TELL
OF BRIBERY
EACH ADMITS RECEIVING MONEY
FOR VOTES
All Have immunity Agreement with
Observation-Disclosures Wilson
Got $4,000, He
Says
~ Associated Press.

ey Associated Press.
SAN FRANCISCO, April 23-FlVe
more members of the former board OF
Supervisors for the third time gave
their testimony this morning in the
trial Of Tirey L. Ford before Judge
Lawlor. =,
The stories of all of them were prae-
tically alike and a repetition or the
testimony given yesterday ny "tiieiS
of the board.
Patrick McGushin was the first Wit
ness called by Assistant District At
torney OGara this morning He tes-
titled that no one had spoken to nm
about the trolley ordinance prior TO lts
passa se but that he understood that
there would be something in it, and
afterward received $4,000 from James Il.
Gallagher, chairman of the finance
committee of the board.
He admitted to OGara that he had
been "sore at the district attorneys
office" for having been forced to re-
sign when he had been promised that
he could serve out his term but de-
clared that he had survived the ca
tastrophe.'
Former Supervisor W. W. Anderson
was the next witness. His direct and
cross-examination were brief. He, too,
testified that no one had spoken to
him about the ordinance prior to its
passage. He was followed on the stand
by Fred Nicholas and Jennings j.
Phillips, whose testimony did not diff
fer materially from that of the others
and was a repetition of other testi-
mony given at the two previous trials
of ford.
No Reference TO Bomb
No reference was made in open court
by either side to the blowing up of the
home in Oakland last night of James
l.. Gallagher, who testified yesterday
morning.
The cross minatiol of Phillips
was not finished when court took a
recess at noon and was renewed at ,
o'clock by Louis F. Byington, former
district attorney, of counsel for Ford.
Byington directed his line of inquiry
toward ascertaining the denomination
of the money received by the witness
from Gallagher. He showed Phillips
a record of the two previous trials of
Ford and tried to establish by 1t that
the witness had testified contradictory
TO this and had given three different
versions on that point.
Phillips endeayored to explain the
Inconsistency of his testimony but was
cut short by Byington with the ques-
ton, Sitting in court and listening TO
the evidence, has that caused you to
change your testimony in this respect?"
The witness emphatically denied that
he was testifying other than to his
best recollection.
Like the others. Phillips admitted
that he was testifying under an i'm
munity contract.
who is to be the Judge oS the truth
of your testimony" asked Byington.
1.-THE prosecution" replied the wit
ness.
yington sought to bring the ad-
mission from Phillips that it was Ru-
dolph Spreckels and not the district
attorney who would pass upon whether
the witness testimony was satisfactory,
but failed.
"BoodIer" Wilson Testfies
Andrew NJ. Wilson, who resigned
from the board of supervisors when
elected railroad commissioner and sub
sequently was forced to resign that
office. next took the witness stand.
Wilson told of sounding the members
of the board on how they stood upon
the trolley ordinance, at the request of
Gallagher, reporting to the latter that
the board favored it and of receiving
SO, 600 from Gallagher after the pas
fed that he received the money in two
payments of $4,000 each, the first pay
ment being in bills of small denomina-
tion, placed in an envelope and hand
ed to him by Gallagher in a corridor of
the ruined city hall early in August,
1905.
The second payment Wilson said he
received from Gallagher in a restau-
rant on August 80, and was deposited
by the witness on the same day with
the California Safe Deposit and Trust
company.
Assistant District Attorney O'Gara
offered in evidence the deposit tag
made out by Wilson when he deposited
the money in the bank.
Stanley Moore of counsel for Ford
took the witness in hand for cross eX-
animation and brought out that Will
son had been indicted within a week
after giving his testimony in the first
trial Of Ford on three counts of re-
ceiving bribes. Witness did not know
why he had been indicted after he had
been included in the immunity CON
tract with the other supervisors but
supposed that it was because his tes-
timony in the first trial was not very
clear and contained a slight uninten-
tional discrepancy which he attributed
to the fact that he was sick at the
time and in a very confused state OF
mind.
Thinks He viii Get Immunity
He had never spoken to any MEM
ber of the prosecution as to the rea-
sons for his indictment. but believed
that it was because of d misunder-
standing of his testimony by the dis
trict attorney that he did not mention
any money consideration when sound
in direct contradiction to the testimony
given by the other members.
Witness stated he meant that he did