Los Angeles herald., 1908-02-07
WANT RUFF
ARRAIGNED
ONCE MORE
LAWYERS MAKE FIRST MOVE
TO DODGE TRIAL
CLAIM TRUE INDICTMENT WAS
NOT SERVED ON HIM
Lonq Technical Battle Now Appears
to Be Confronting Court in the
Trolley Franchise Case.
"Omisson" Cited

BY Associated Press.
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 6.-Upon
the ground that the defendant had
never been arraigned and that true
copy of the indictment had not been
served upon him. Abraham Ruef,
through his attorneys, Henry Ach
and Frank J. Murphy, this afternoon
objected to further proceedings in his
trial on No. 1923 of the fourteen United
Railroads trolley indictments charging
Ruef, Patrick Calhoun, Thornwall
Mutually, TREY L. Ford, William M.
Abbott and former Mayor Schmitz
with bribery. and moved that the
pretended and alleged arraignment
be nullified by the court, and the de-
fcndant legally arraigned.
With the table I'm front of Ruef and
his attorneys loaded down with several
armsfull of law books, from which a
formidable array of authorities We're
cited i'm support of their contention,
Ruef made his first move in what
promises to be long technical fight
before the actual trial begins.
Ruef commenced by discovering an
alleged fatal omission In the copy
of the indictment delivered to him.
This copy. handed to him when he
was srraigned, with the other defend
ants in the trolley cases, May "a last
year. omitted to state that kuer nau
bribed the supervisors with intent 10
corrupt them" as contained in the
original statement.
Discovered 1t Late
Ruef, in a lengthy affidavit, declared
that he did not make this discovery
until February /, when he demanded
and first saw the original, ana ms
ATTORNEYS argued and cited authori-
ties; that as the serving of copy
of the indictment forms one of the
three steps in arraignment, and as the
COPY delivered was not true copy.
hence no copy had been served, 1t fol-
lowed that there had been no arra1gn-
ment.
This discovery" and move on the
part of Ruef came as surprise TO
the prosecution, and Assistant District
ATTORNEY John O'Gara vainly sought to
interpose objections to the making OF
the objection and motion, and TO the
reading of the affidavit, without flrst
being served with copies and notice.
Ruef took an active part. frequently
whispering suggestions to Murphy
while the latter was citing authorities
and making his argument in which
he maintained that Ruef had a right
to believe that the copy furnished him
was a true copy of the original.
Had the latter contained the same
omission of allegation of intent. he
said. the indictment would have been
fatally" defective and could nave
been ouashed because no public Of
Tense can be made out without IN
tent.
Incidentally during the proceedings,
Ach called attention to the same err
ror in all the United Railroads indlct-
r,ents. and said that the defendant
was ready and willing to be properly
and lawfully arraigned."
Upon request of Assistant Dlslrlct
Attorney OGara' Judge h 90 tll Ill,
tinued the matter until 2:SO tomorrow
afternoon to give the prosecution OPP
nortunity to make q counter showing.
should the court sustain the con-
tention of Ruef, il not only would
nullify all the arraignments and pleas
of Ruef on the fourteen trolley lndlct-
ments. but similarly affect Calhoun,
Nullally. Ford, Abbott and Schnht q.
s1;pposing that the same omission IS
contained in the copies served upon
II will enable Ruef and the other
attendants to repeat all the tedious
technical objections and Ming OF mo
lions and demurTers to the indlct-
ments. which have already been dis
posed of.
Did It to Conceal Facts
Ruef stated in a lengthy affidaVit
that his former plea of not guilty ana
the formal duplication by him OF the
fling of motions, objections and de-
with the express understanding, knowl-
edge. approval and direction of Dis
trict Attorney Langdon and Assistant
7 istrict Attorney Francis j. Heney IN
order that the fact that he had been
granted immunity would not become
public
"That on the evening of the 18TH
dav of January, 1908. this aftiant was
informed by District Attorney Lang
don that he O4angdon) could not carry
out said immunity contract for the
reason that the judge of this court
HaWlor) would not agree TO q as
nissal of charges pending against this
defendant in said department IL OF
this court. and would not erant Az ~
motion of the district attorney 10 as
miss the same, although said district
attorney and said assistant district at
tornev before and at the time or the
making of said immunity contract, did
assure this aff1ant that the judge OF
department IL did agree That ne woulo
dismiss said indictment upon motlon
of the district attorney, which assur-
onces as 10 the said agreement of the
said Judge was also made to this ar
Aant by the Rev. Jacob Nieto and the
Rev. bernard Kaplan. both of whom
vouched to this defendant that said
agreement was made by said judge II
their presence. ,,- ~,
The cases of Schmitz, Calhoun, Mul.
laily, Ford and Abbot, were continue
until Monday morning over the OBJ
| factions of Stanley Moore, who statec
that Calhoun and the other officials
of the United Railroads were ready
and demanded TO be placed on trial
FIVE FRENCH SOLDIERS
aatnIIMnEn la AaAR MAE