The San Francisco call., 1908-03-04
WILLIAM S. TFvIS
NOT YET LOCATED
Plaintiff in Bulletin Libel Suit
Fails to Appear in
Court
Attorney Tells Judge He May
Be Able, May Be Not, TO
Find Him

William s. Tevis, plaintiff IN the
Tevis-Bulletin libel suit, still is in hid
ing. having failed to appear before
Judge Dooling yesterday when the suit
was resumed II. L. Packard, attorney
for Tevis, denied all knowledge of his
clients whereabouts. but stated the lat
ter may be in either Deming, n. NJ.
Tombstone or Tucson. Ariz., or Albu-
querque, n NJ Near each of those
four cities Tevis owns land, according
TO Packard and when the former left
Bakersfield during the latter part of
February he went ostensibly to that
vicinity without explaining the cause
for his sudden departure
Have you any knowledge at all Of
Mr.. Tevis' whereabout asked the
court of Packard shortly before noon
when the latter was placed on the
witness stand.
Il have not" replied Packard. "but
believe that am in a position to find
out where he is within the next few
days, but 1 viii not state so positively" I"
IT am convinced that Mr.. Packard
is acting in good faith in this matter" :"
said Judge Dooling following question
ing of the witness on the part Of As
sistant District Attorney William Hoff
Cook relative TO Tevis' whereabouts.
DEFENSE INTERROGATES
Matt / Sullivan for the defense then
took UP the Interrogation of Packard
and drew from the latter a statement
10 the effect that February Is or 1e
last. at the time Of the visit to Bakers
field by Attorneys Cuilinan and Hickey
for CrOthers and Older, Tevis was in
Bakersfield and that he packard had
been told the sheriff was then search
ing for Tevis with subpoena summon
Ev-r- "a lot - sr, - -fr
for the prosecution in the libel suit
against the Bulletin. Packard also
admitted it was about February 1s or
20 that Tevis departed for the middle
west, but that he did not remember
having warned Tevis of the subpoena.
Attorney Sullivan also attempted TO
elicit information from Packard rela-
tive TO certain letters that had been
addressed to Attorney General Webb
complaining Of the alleged behavior of
District Attorney Langdon and the lat
ter's associate. Cook Immediately OBJ
5ected to such proceeding The court
sustained him, saying;
I do not wish TO listen to any col
lateral testimony in this case at any
time"
Reference TO the absence of Ruef was
again made yesterday afternoon by
Cook. Last week similar reference
was made by Cook. who stated that if
q bribe had been offered the former
boss the latter could testify to that
effect as readily as Tevis, whose pres
ence, he said, was not material Yes
terday's reference was prompted by an
effort to block testimony on the part
of Jennings Phillips, a supervisor dur
ing the Schmitz administration. Attor-
ney Hiram W. Johnson attempted tC
get testimony from Phillips referring
TO details Of a caucus held in Schmitz
Office on the water project in January
1906, and at which time Ruef is said
TO have urged the supervisors to put
through the Bay Cities deal, as there
was more in that than anything that
had yet come before them"
COOK MAKES OBJECTION
7 object to that" said Cook. "The
essential thing is being assumed, name
y, that there was a relation between
Ruef and Tevis. Such a fact has not
as yet been established, and until il
has been the court has no right to
listen to testimony as to what took
place at the alleged caucus" Follow
ing his objection Cook put in the
greater part of the afternoon citing
vOluminous testimony supporting his
objection. and wound UP by saying:
Testimony has been introduced here to show
lbelous article Ruef had not testified to the
Oliver grand jury that bribe had been offered
br Tevis- Francis J. Heney testified few mo
ments ago that it not until September IS
1905, that Ruef testified TO the grand Jury. Il
Ruef had given the Oliver grand jury any evi
dence Of that nature God knows that the Oliver
grand jury would have indicted. II Ruef coulS
have been found guilty then. why he mo-
be found guilty nowf
Regarding the question of libel the
court informed the attorneys for the
defense and Cook that in it's opinion
there was libel and would so instruc
the jurors. but that the article set.
forth three different parts. Firstly, ar
effort TO foist upon the city an made.
quate water supply; secondly, thai
Tevis attempted to bribe Ruef, and
thirdly, that on the strength Of Ruef'.
testimony Tevis was to be indicted. L
is for the Jurors to pass upon the Law
and fact in the case and they may pas.
over opinions Of the court.
Following this argument a reces:
was taken until 10 o'clock this morning