The San Francisco call., 1909-12-05
CHARGES AGAINST
WILSON DISMISSED
On Motion of Prosecutor Heney
Court Drops Graft Cases
From the Calendar
Former Supervisor Given Re-
ward for Testifying Fully,
Freely and Honestly"

On motion of Assistant District At
torney Heney the three indictments
against Andrew NJ Wilson. one of the
leaders of the Gallagher doodle board
of supervisors. were dismissed by
Judge Dunno yesterday This act of
eopsfderation to Wilson was reward
for the fact that in the trials of Rue.
and Calhoun he testified fully freely
and honestly" to quote the words OF
Heney.
In dismissing the indictments Judge
Dunno made IL quite plain that other
graft cases will not be dismissed by
him for the asking. L don't want any
one TO carry away the impression that
the action of the court in this case is
to be taken as a precedent in any flu
ture case he said. Where he has no
confidence in the district attorney he
viii have no hesitation in denying such
motion. the judge declared.
THE WILSON INDICTMENTS
Wilson was indicted October /. 1907.
Just previously he had testified in the
first trial of Tirey l. Ford but vio-
lated his contract of immunitys IL
was stated. by varying his statements
materially from those of his cOnfes-
sion to William j. Burns He failed
TO remember that he had told LOner-
gan there was $4,000 in the trolley deal
for him, and was hay about the cir
eumstances of the actual offer OF
money TO himself. Three indictments
were returned against Wilson-the first
charging the acceptance of $4,000
from Ford, RUef and Gallagher to vote
for the overhead trolley franchise. the
second the acceptance of $500 frOnIa
A. X. Detwiler, Gallagher and Ruef to
vote for the Home telephone fran
of $3.50 from Frank G. Drum, Ruef and
Gallagher for his vote upon the gas
rate ordinance.
Wilson subsequently testified in the
third Ford trial as we'll as in the Ruef
and Calhouns trials. His testimony on
those occasions was in accord with his
original confession.
Following is a full transcript of the
proceedings in court yesterday:
Heney-In cases 1851, 1852 and 1OS;; desire on
behalf of the district attorneys office 10 move
to dismiss those eases under section 1885 Of the
penal code, and the Is that A. NJ Viii
son since he was indicted appeared as a wit
ness on behalf Of the people In the cases of
and honestly. and that he also testified in the
case of People Patrick Calhoun, and
against the defendant Wilson should be dis
missed.
The Court-On motion of the district attorney
cause ordered dismissed. The same order in an
three cases. Mr. Heney2
Heney-Yes. my motion to all three
cases.
The Court-This motion is granted because
have the fullest confidence in the district at
tOrney's office and whenever I feel the district
attorney is acting in good faith and that he is
assisting the administration Of justice. why.
under those circumstances and I have cond-
dence in the district attorney. / have hest
tatiOn in granting a motion Of this kind. and
where l have not confidence in the district at
tOrney i want il understood that 7 win have
hesitation in denying such motion. 1
don't want any to carry away the impression
that the action of the court in this ease Is to
be taken a precedent in any future
Heney-My action is based on decisions OF the
supreme court Of the United States to the effect
that where a witness testihes fully. freely aud
honestly IL acts virtually pardon and
the court has right upon the motion OF the