The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-06-19

As she unzllF started 10 1e<lNe TOT 0cf
automobile she was introduced to the
defendant and several Of his attorneys
and stopped long eenOush TO shak
hands warmly all around and converse
for littIe time While il lasted IL was
an inpromptn social reception being
held IN the very shadow OF the build.
ing in which a great criminal trial was
reaching its climax and the principal
figures n tie reception were the de-
Sen6z-t "a that criminal trial and one
OF the best known actresses Of the
countrE-
Coffey Named fer Misconduct
There was an interruption OF A DIFF
ferent sort within the courtroom3s short
u prior TO this time when Reney
paused suddenly in the course OF his
argument 10 charge Dr. " B. Corey,
chief surEeon Of the United Railroa ds.
with misconduct toward the jury
Heney was returning 10 his desk for a
reference book when the incident oc-
CURED He was spoken TO by Police
man Charles COT. who whispered to
him for sn instant Heney Strengthened
and gaze6 sharply toward Cofey and
his attitude attracted Judge Lawlors
attention
Are you going to proceedr' asked
the court
Yes, your honor" answered Heney>
but my attention has just been called
20 some misconduct on the part OF Dr.,
corey IN connection. with this jury"
Surgeon Replies TO Heney
Your honor" cried DIT. Cofey, rising
from his place behind Calhoun's at
torneys within the second court room
rail. 7 am willing to reply TO M
Eeney. This inference IS outrageous
am sitting here and paying no atten-
ton to any one but M Heney, and
declare that this is an outrage that
16r. Heney should call me ont here in
public demand an apology
Wei. you won't get il, returned
Beney sharply
man and you are not" shouted back
Coaey-
haven't made any charge I said my
attention had been called TO miscon-
duct on your part"
Judge Lawlor forced DR.. Coffey to
take bis seat, and asked for an expla-
nation Cor explained that he had
seen Cofey placing his hands to his
face in a peculiar position and smiling
toward the jury and had called atten-
ton to st.
Attempts TO Stop Heney
Attorneys King and A. A Moore OBJ
5ected 20 the insinuation which they
declared was directed toward Dr. COT
lev. and a short wrangle resulted. The
matter was dropped at that without
further comment by the court or by
Eeney-
During the legal argument which
grew out Of the objection TO Heney' s
references to the failure Of the defense
10 call witnesses TO the stand several
efforts were made by Calhoun's a1tor-
neys 10 take advantage ot the privilege
given them 70 discuss the legal issue
and twist il into a direct argument to
the jury under the guise of citing in
stances" The court put stop TO this.
The argument turned on the point as
TO whether Heney might argue infer
ences 20 be drawn from this failure OF
the defense TO controvert direct testi-
mony, when IL was within their power
20 do so by merely calling witnesses TO
the stand who could give the lie direct
10 the claims made by the prosecution
II those claims were untrue
The defense cited cases TO prove the
contention that such argument would
constitute error, but Heney returned
the fire with g recent decision Of the
supreme court OF this state making just
such evidence admissible.
Ruling Favors Prosecution
Judge Lawlor took the issue under
consideration for short time and final
" ruled in favor of Heney's contention
that he had the right to discuss the
failure Of any witness, with the eKcep-
tion of the defendant himself, to take
the stand.
Heney plunged TO the charge at once.
He answered the demand as to why the
prosecution had not called these wit
nesses in its own behalf by showing
that they had refused to testify before
the grand jury and in former trials,
and that il was not in the power of the
prosecution to call them, even If they
were necessary to substantiate the
prosecutions case instead OF being
necessary 70 the other side to disprove
the charges made by the prosecution.
Defense Lawyers Answered
Yet these attorneys for the defense
stand up here and argue TO you that
dis money might have been used for a
legitimate purpose" cried Heney. They
attempt TO raise an inference which is
false. and which they know to be false
when they make IL. Patrick Calhoun
knows what became of that money. for
lie was the man who ordered II paid ia
iTord. His attorneys know what be-
trame Of 1t.
Why Not Tell About Money?
why. then, do they face you with
these Ialse lnIeTenceS ana IDeSe dirty
Instructions? Why don't they tell you
what was done with the money? Why
don't they produce witnesses to dis
prove our claims2
That is the the inference that you
men have a right to consider from this
failure Of Ford or Ruef TO appear as
witnesses Haven't we met this de-
Tense on every dirty insinuation that
has been made? Haven't we answered
every vile. dirty insinuation that they
have raised as their only answer to
what we have proved? What is ii all
evidence of when they fail TO explain
this expenditure when il is In their
power 10 do so. and when they stand
up afterward and try TO induce you
through subterfuge and false insinua-
ton, 10 believe that this money was
tlEed for q legitimate nurpose2 II is