Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1909-05-13
VENUE CHANGE
IS REFUSED in
BRIBERY CASES
MAY GRANT MOTION AFTER
PRESENT HEARING
NICK OSWALD is NERVOUS ON
WITNESS STAND
Efforts of Defense to Connect Grand
Jury Testimony with Return Of
Indictments Again Prove
Fruitless

The motion of attorneys representing
Thomas II. Broadhead and Samuel
Schenck, indicted former city officials,
for a transfer to another department
of the superior court of the hearing in
proceedings having for their purpose
the setting aside of the indictments,
was denied by Judge Davis of depart
ment twelve yesterday, the court ex-
pressing the opinion that the privilege
of the statute could not be invoked in
the present proceedings
Judge Davis stated, however, ne
would take up and pass on the motion
for a change of judges when the pres
ent hearing is concluded, it being APP
plieable, he said, only in connection
with future proceedings.
Five witnesses were examined yester-
day by Attorneys Appel and Schenck
in a further effort to connect the testl-
many of e. t. Earl and other witnesses
before the grand jury, whose names do
not appear on the indictments, with the
action of the jury in returning true
bills. The effort was fruitless. The
witnesses We're James A. Montgomery
a member of the late grand jury; I. G.
Gould a reporter; Nick oswald, Will
liam L. Fetter and e. 7. Earl, in the
order named
Nick Oswald Nervous
Each was prevented from answering
questions by the sustained objections
interposed by w. j. Ford, deputy dis
triet attorney, in charge of the prose-
cution.
1t was Oswald's first appearance on
the witness stand during the proceed
ings. He was extremely nervous, and
the few preliminary and unimportant
questions he was allowed to answer
were responded to in low voice. Most
of the questions propounded to him re-
lated chiefly to the statements in an
affidavit given to Mr.. Earl, and to the
books of the red light district.
The motion for a change of judges
was taken up at o'clock, Mr.. Ford
stating six grounds on which he claimed
the motion could not be granted. These
were supported by an affidavit of Judge
Davis which, in substance, denied that
he held or had expressed any opinion
concerning the present hearing, or that
he had intimated in advance that there
was no merit in the proceedings.
In denying the motion Judge Davis
said:
More Arguments Expected
Whatever view the court may here
dlleT duODl CONCERNING the lIeIllS VI
the motion as relating to future pro-
ceedings in the case, 1 am of the opin-
ion that the privilege of the statute
cannot be invoked for the purpose of
making such motion referred to appli-
cable to the present proceeding before
the court, which is the hearing on mo-
lions to set aside the indictments,
which had commenced and was in prog
ress when the motion having for its
purpose the disqualification of the
judge was interposed. At later time,
and after the conclusion of the hearing
on the motions now before the court,
will take up and pass upon the merits
of the motion having for its purpose
the disqualification of the judge
Before the adjournment of court, At
torneys Appel and Schenck announced
there were three persons remaining to
be called as witnesses, two members of
the late grand jury, and e. j. Fleming,
former city prosecutor. The hearing
was continued to $50 o'clock today.
While it is believed the taking of
testimony will be concluded today, the
defense, in anticipation of an unfavor-
able decision, has prepared lengthy de-
murrers, and argument on these, it is
expected, will occupy the rest of the
week and may extend into the coming
week.