The San Francisco call., 1909-06-13
SUPREME COURT
ORDERS REVIEW
OF GLASS CASE
Rehearing Granted to Prosecu-
ton and Appellate Bench
Must Hear Evidence
Action Brings Telephone Mag
nate Once More in Peril
of Penitentiary

Louis Glass, vice president and gen
eraI manager of the Pacific States tele-
phone and telegraph company, is again
in peril of the penitentiary, and the
seeming victory.
Upon the argument of the district
attorney that the court of appeal
erred in reversing the verdict of guilty
against the convicted CRATER because
of immaterial points in the case which
had no bearing on the outcome, the
supreme court yesterday ordered a re-
hearing of the case before the appellate
court.
This action means that the man who
bribed the Ruef supervisors to refuse
franchise to the Home telephone com
pany will have to show that the evi-
dence on which the verdict of guilty
was found was insufficient or go to
the penitentiary.
Cook Makes Petition
William Hoff Cook, assistant dis
trict attorney, filed in the supreme
court a petition for rehearing after
the decision of the court of appeal
was handed down, in which he dwelt
upon the immateriality of the points
/ on which the intermediate court based
its reversal
The order granting the petition was
handed down yesterday morning and
was signed by justices Angeilotti,
Shaw, Sloss and Melvin.
The order is a bare statement of
the courts decision to rehear the case.
and its real significance can be drawn
only from the brief submitted by the
prosecution, on which the court took
favorable action. In this brief Assist
ant District Attorney Cook argued
that the court of appeal did not re-
verse the verdict OF guilty against
Glass because cf any insufhciency of
evidence. but because 4tIfe prosecution
had been allowed to introduce evidence
showing that the defendant had en-
ployed tactics similar to those he re-
sorted to in San Francisco to keep the
Home telephone company from pro-
curing a competing franchise in Oak
land. and also because the local court
refused to instruct the jury to dis
regard the refusal of witness
to testify on the ground that
he might incriminate himself
Opportunity to Argue
In concluding. the petition asked the
court to grant the district attorney
opportunity to argue the point whether
or not the prosecution had produced
evidence sufficient to prove that Louis
Glass aided and abetted Halsey in the
crime of bribing Lonergan and the
other supervisors with $4,000 to pre-
vent the issuance of franchise to the
Home telephone company.
The district attorneys brief was filed
on May %, and on June . Attorneys t.
&c. Coogan and c. w. Cross submitted
a brief in which they strenuously op-
posed the granting of rehearing. but
offered no more potent argument in
support of their contention than that
the decision of the appellate court
was one which was fully able to stand
by itself without any necessity for a
hearing by the supreme court
T. c. Coogan, chief counsel for Glass,
refused to make any statement what
ever for publication when informed of
the supreme courts action yesterday.
He contented himself with saying that
the defense would take the matter up
in court at the proper time.
Glass, who has been at liberty pend
ing the outcome of his appeal because
of i'll health, was not in the city last
night. but is expected to return today
from Fresno.
Cites Glass Reversal
The decision of the district court of
appeal in reversing the conviction of
Louis Glass for bribery was cited in
Judge Cabaniss' court yesterday in
support of petition to set aside the
conviction of a man fined $3.50 by a
police Judge for improper behavior in
a public place. The testimony in the
case showed that James Smith. the de-
fendant. had similarly misconducted
himself in the same vicinity six months
before. His attorney. Walter J.
Thompson, argued that the evidence
to that effect should not have been in
troduced.
Might it not have been proper to
show motive?" suggested Judge
Cabaniss.
"Under the recent decision of the
district court of appeal in the Glass
case that Would be palpable error" an
swered Thompson. The appellate court
held in the Glass case that the trial
judge was in error in permitting the
introduction of testimony as to the
defendants activities in, Oakland prior
to his bribery of San Francisco super
visors, and it was this ruling to which
Thompson referred.
Judge Cabaniss said he would not. if
he could help it, release man con-
victed of such an offense on mere tech
nicality. The case went over to Tues
day for further consideration of the
point raised.