The San Francisco call., 1909-04-15
GLASS TO FACE
THIRD TRIAL ON
BRIBE CHARGE
Appeal Court Sets Aside Tele-
phone Officials Conviction
on Two Errors
Opinion UphOIds Validity of In
dictment Despite Flood
of Objections

for the commission of the crime
charged must grow out Of the collateral
crime
on these grounds the court finds that
the rulings permitting the Introduction
of this evidence were clearly errone-
GUS"
The court further upholds the excep-
tion taken to the neglect of Judge
Lswlor to give the jury two instruc-
tions bearing on the significance TO be
attached TO the refusal of E. ]. Zim-
mer. formerly an auditor Of the tele-
phone company. to testify at the trial
OF Glass.
Gave Damaging Testimony
Before the grand jury thinner gave
the most damaging testimony against
Glass. His testimony, implicated Glass
as the official Of the company who or
dered Theodore V. Halsey to do the
actual bribing. thinner testified that
Glass had given him check for s5o.-
000 which he had cashed, paying the
money 10 Halsey This s50.OO0 was
paid in parcels TO 10 members of the
NtDIlluE board OF SUPERVISORS
When Glass was placed on trial for
the first time thinner refused to tes-
tify on the constitutional ground that
he might incriminate himself When
the hrst jury disagreed and Glass was
tried again. the testimony of thinner
was stiu lacking tC complete the case
of the prosecution.
Glass attorneys requested Judge
Lawlor 10 give the jury instructions
10 the effect:
First that the jury had no right to
indulge any presumption or influence
unfaYorable 10 the defendant because
of the refusal of any witness 70 tes-
tify
Second. that the refusal of an alleged
co-conspirator or agent of the con-
spiracy TO testify should not be con-
sidered by the jury and that the jury
should not infer that the testimony
would have been damaging to the de-
fendant
Judge LawlOr refused TO give these
instructions TO the jury, and this in
the opinion Of the appeal court, con-
stituted a second error in the trial
These instructions, the court holds /
state a correct rule Of law and were
pertinent TO the case. After reviewing
Zimmers connection with the case, the
court holds that in refusing to testify
he exercised a clear right given by
against the defendant could be drawn
from his refusal to take the stand.
Declares Court Erred
Declaring that the precise point in
Volved ia the refusal of the trial Judge
10 give the instructions submitted by
the attorneys for the defense was de-
cided In the case of the People vs.
Irwin ia the 18th California, page 494
the appellate court holds that the court
erred in its refusal
The attempts OF Glass attorneys TO
pick flaws in the Indictment were un-
successful, the appellate court sweeping
aside all the objections which were
raised. To the first objection that the
Indictment did not allege that Glass
knew Lonergan to be member of the
board Of supervisors, the court replies
that the statute does not expressly re-
Quire this allegation. 1t also refused
10 sustain the objection based on the
supposed omission from the indictment
of the allegation that the bribe money
was given TO influence Lonergan "un-
lawfully, the court finding that the
indictment was clear upon this point
To the claim that the Indictment did
not state with certainty what matter
was pending before the board or with
what intent the bribe was given. the
court replies that the Indictment is
not a model in this particular" but
that any person OF common under
standing" would know that reference
was made to the telephone company.
Finally, to the objection that the in
dictment failed to state what Loner-
gan was to do or TO omit to do. the
court replies that il is sufficiently clear
THAI the bribe was given to influence
Lonergan in an official act
The court therefore finds that the
attack on the Indictment was un-
hos
rest Of Judgment was properly denied
Holds Evidence Admissible
Glass attorneys also made the
claim that error was committed in al
lowing the Introduction of evidence
as to the bribing Of the other super
Visitors The court rules that this evil
dence was admissible and reviews the
case at some length to show that there
was an alleged conspiracy to bribe
majority OF the board of supervisors
il points out that the evidence relied
upon by the prosecution TO connect the
defendant Glass with the bribery of
Lonergan was entirely circumstantial
and that the court was entitled on that
account 10 considerable latitude in the
admission Of evidence
After the briefs Of the defense and
the prosecution had been filed in the
appellate court the Glass attorneys
flied a motion for a diminution Of the
record for the purpose of bringing into
the case a copy of the demurrer filed
in the lower court. They had over
looked the matter in filing a bill of
exceptions 10 perfect their appeal. The
court At that time granted the motion
for diminution of the record, though
st was strenuously opposed by the
prosecution. But the court reserved
for determination at the final hearing
the question whether the demurrer
should properly be considered part OF
point the court adjudicates in favor of
the defendant.