Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1909-05-14
INDICTMENTS
SUSTAINEDBY
JUDGE DAVIS
OVERRULES MOTIONS TO
0UASH CHARGES
ATTORNEYS ENTER IMMEDIATE
pEMURRERs
Member of Last Grand Jury Proves
Unsatisfactory Witness for De-
fense-Former Prosecutor
on Stand

before whom the hearing for the set
ting aside of the indictments charging
attempted bribery against Thomas H.
Broadhead and Samuel Schenck has
been in progress for more than eight
days, denied the motions yesterday,
stating that no sufficient evidence to
support the grounds on which they
were based had been introduced.
Attorneys Appel and Paul Schenck,
representing the indicted men, lmmedl-
ately filed demurrers to the indict-
ments, and these will be arguedt Mon
day. Nothing was said by the court OF
the attorneys on either side concerning
the motion for a change of judges, and
q decision on this motion, so far as IL
applies to future proceedings, PROBABLY
will not be rendered until the demur-
rers are ruled upon.
The defense deviated from its general
line of inquiry Just before the adjourn
ment yesterday while the last member
of the late grand jury called to the
stand, Charles Yeaton of Santa Monica
was being questioned. The questions
concerning the preparation of the
grand jury report, filed when the IN
uuisitorial body completed its work.
the apparent object OF the attoIlle t;ss
being to gain information as to the
identity of its author The report, o..
the greatest portion of it, contained
matter tending to vindicate the dis
trict attorneys office for the failure OF
the investigation carried on by the
preceding grand jury, failure which
was the subject of a great deal of crit
Objections Stop Answers
Mr.. Yeaton was the only member of
the last grand jury to whom questions
concerning the report were propounded,
but he was not allowed to make re-
sponses, owing to the sustained ooJec-
tions interposed by Mr.. Ford, deputy
district attorney, in charge OF the pros
ecution.
Besides Mr.. Yeaton, the only witness
called by. the defense yesterday was
e. J. Fleming, former city prosecutor
whose testimony in the grand jury
room led to the indictment of Schenck.
A number of lengthy questions were
propounded by Attorney Appel in an
effort to connect Mr.. Fleming's testl-
mony as a grand jury witness with the
charge embraced in the Broadhead
indictment, upon which his name does
not appear. Each question was OBJ
iected to by Mr.. Ford and ruled out
by the court.
The questions related to the time
when Mr.. Fleming was employed as
deputy district attorney in charge or
state cases at the police station, his
efforts at that time to bring about
reform in the redlight district and the
opposition he experienced from MEM
bers of Harper's administration and
politicians.
Grand Juror on Stand
Former Grand Juror Yeaton was the
second witness. He remembered little,
he said, of what had transpired in the
grand jury room.
81 took little interest in the civic
affairs of Los Angeles before the in
vestigation began, and when it ended
1 put all thoughts of it from my mind"
he said. He could give little informa-
ton regarding the identity of witnesses
or the time when they appeared before
the jury. At one point in the exam
nation of Mr.. Yeaton he said, in re-
Spouse to a question by Mr.. Appel,
whether or not the grand jury had
been investigating the charges con-
tanned in the indictments from the time
il first met:
"Sure, all the way through. The
Jury gave the best attention to every
thing"
Mr.. Ford was on his feet in an in
slant, asking that the answer be
stricken from the record on the ground
that the question was too general.
Judge Davis, however, allowed 1t to
remain, but its effect was nullifed a
few moments later when the witness
on REORGANIZATION and with his
memory refreshed by the apparently
leading questions of Mr.. Ford, stated
the charge against Broadhead was not
considered until the appearance of Os-
valid in the grand jury room, while he
had no distinct recollection as to when
the charge against Schenck was first
taken up.
Want Day to Argues
This concluded the examination Of
witnesses, Mr.. Ford stating he would
introduce no evidence. Attorneys APP
pei and Schenck requested half day
each in which to argue the matter, and
when this time was cut down to a total
of one hour, both attorneys objected
to the Limitation and declined to pro-
coed with the argument.
In denying the motions to quash the
indictments Judge Davis said: Il have
listened to the testimony of witnesses
and considered the evidence, noticing
carefully that which was material.
While as to some facts upon which
the defendants rely there has been pre-
sented testimony in support of their
grounds there has been conflict in
the evidence, and on the whole no evil
dence sufficient to support any of the
grounds has been introduced. Each
and all of the motions will be denied"
Attorneys Appel and Schenck then
presented demurrerS to the lnd1ct-
nents, attacking their validity on
various grounds. Argument on these
demurrers was continued to Monday,
the first case to be heard being that
follow Immediately after Attorney
Schenck closes.
cLoo4s and Kills Wife