The San Francisco call., 1909-03-23
RUEPS REALTY
AGENT UP FOR
CALHOUN JUROR
Partner of One of Curly Boss
BOndsmen Willing to Take
Place in Box
Defense Fights TO Prevent
Challenge of Grafter's
Business Associate
By w. Russell Cole


ant District Attorney Heney Of the last
talesman called yesterday in the Cal
:,oun case served TO illustrate once more
The nature Of The often expressed desire
n Patrick CaIhoun's attorneys 10 Sc
cure fair and impartial' jurors. Il
was made quite plain that the defense
was anxious. or at least perfectly will
ing. to accept as a juror Abraham S.
. FEEDER. member Of the firm which
handles Abe Ruefs finances and a part
uer Of one OF Ruefs bondsmen.
FEEDER developed a most pronounced
case Of what Heney later characterized
as IN utter lack OF intelligence. but he
was passed by Earl Rogers OF the de-
feuse after a short and perfunctory ex-
animation and every method was then
adopted by the defense TO combat
Heney-s effort TO disqualify him. The
Enquiry was not finished when adjourn
ment was taken and will be the first
number on the program Of procedure
:this morning The examination Of An
drew Foreman. another talesman. was
also EFF in an unfinished state and
VIII he resumed today. With the ex-
5ceprion OF these two cases no talesman
-rnder IRE yesterday lasted for more
.Ihan Eve minutes. and more than q
score were disposed Of.
HANDLES RUEF-S BUSINESS
O.. Feder is member Of the real estate
f.rn Of Kahn & Feder, which attends
20 al Of Ruefs real estate business and
the collection Of his rents and care Of
Ills properties. and I. Z. Kahn, the
.other member q the firm, was one Of
Rlefs bondsmen when he was a.
lllrted 10 bail after the disagreement
-of the jury in the Parkside case FEEDER
tDld all this. and then declared that
be never formed any opinion as 10
whether Ruef received any bribes or
paid any money 10 the supervisors.
lie testified that he had read prae-
= rically everything that had been pub
lished about the graft cases since their
T. inception. but had not even formed a
:-bellef as 70 whether or not the super
f-is6rs received any money Heney had
struggle on his hands 10 explain 10
the talesman the distinction between
belief and positive knowledge.
Were you ever in London?" he
. finally asked.
= No"
DO you believe there is such
rlaceo'
E why. yes"
Vow Go you see the distinction2"
demanded Heney. I'm not trying to
End out what you know personally
about this case. want 10 know what
: you think about IL"
.'s But this didn't dispel the fog of
. understanding. FEEDER averred that
has mind was q perfect blank 50 far
.-as kuef was concerned that he be-
/ lieved il was the Parkside case in
p which Ruef was convicted and that at
.-best any ideas Of which he was pos
sessed were nothing more than mere
impressions over and over again.
Heney put QusstiOns 70 the Juror,
which tie latter failed 10 answer di-
rec-ly. taking refuge IN the declaration
- r-rat he did not understand what Heney
was driving at
ASKS POINTED QUESTION
Isn't IL q fact that you can't an
<.EEer these questions because you are
afraid that Il YOU did answer them
frankly you would disQualify your
self-' demanded Heney.
a. A. Moore took an exception 10
the question as being insulting and
pre5udiclal 10 the rights Of the de-
Iencsnr. Heney returned an answer
mat was anything but complimentary
70 The tslesman.
II there is any subdivision in the
statute that applies 10 lack Of inteIli-
eence as 2 ground for challenge III
t-rlain-y use it, he declared.
Moore took another exception and
won another retort from Heney.
The curious part of IL all" he said
us that you should want Mr. Kahn's
partner as z juror"
FEEDER had made no move TO resent
Heneys remarks up 10 this point. bur
~ zf1
explanation Il was only half
hearted expression Of resentment. how
ever, and Eeder quit in the middle OF II
and sat down without defending him
Self a. all Heney fnterposed a formal
challenge, but the defense resisted on
The ground that any opinion which the
Juror might have expressed was more
favorable 10 the prosecution than the
defense. A A Moore asked Judge
LaWlor 10 make & distinct ruling on
the question Of whether the p-osec.,
ton had right 10 challenge when the
opinion expressed was adverse TO the
other side. Il was evidently an At
tempt 10 have Judge Lawlor commit
himself 70 ruling on q close point
which might be made the basis of an
attack in q higher court. but the court
avoided the trap. declaring that the
exact issue had not been clearly pre-
sented and that a decision was un-
necessary q llt TINE me cna44enKe
was not submitted and the examination
was held open until this morning.
INQUIRY Is DELAYED
Andrew Foreman. a retired type
manufacturer. is also being held for
further examination by the defense
Foreman has lived in san Francisco,
since 1856. but declared that he has
given no attention TO graft matters and
has read absolutely nothing which
might influence him as juror It was
evident throughout his examination
that Rogers was trying hard 10 find
peg on which 10 hand challenge, but
oe failed 70 develop anything that
12ight be construed into q ground for
. disqualification. Judge Lawlor saved
. the situation by ordering that the in
euiry be held IN allegiance until today.
An early adjournment OF the trial
was taken yesterday afternoon and the
latter part Of the session was devoted
TO the preliminary examination OF the
.tUenty-ffth special venire OF so tales
-5.men.
-S
Blossom Day