The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-08-10
MILLIONAIRE IS
AMONGPOSSIBLE
CALHOUN JURORS
Peter A. Finigan, Hero of Sent
satiOnaI Divorce Suit, Ques-
toned as to His Opinions
Spent Seven Weeks in Jail Be-
cause He Would Not Pay
Wife AIimOny

Peter a flnlSans the Alilliohd4lS
mining man who spent seven weeks
in jail rather than pay his wife alimony
may sit in judgment upon Patrick Cal
houn. and be called upon TO decide
whether or not the trolley magnate
shall be adjudged eligible to the peni-
Tertiary for bribery. He was called
as talesman yesterday, and exam
ined at length, but the inquisition was
Interrupted before counsel could dis
cover II the fact that Finigan went
10 jail for refusing TO pay alimony
would lead him TO hesitate to incar-
cerate- Calhoun. should il become plain
that ii was the proper thing to do.
Finigan stated frankly that he
thought it wrong TO grant Ruef i'm
munity but did not profess TO be
Judge in the matter OF the immunity
arran ccmeuts made with the super
visors lie said that the people who
made the deal should know what they
were doing
JOLLY LUNCHES" WITH MOORE
The capitalist showed a familiarity
with several men connected with the
graft prosecution and defense, and
stated that he had had some Jolly
lunches with A A. Moore, one of CAL
houn's attorneys. The elder Moore
was not in court yesterday, and it was
thought that Finigan was referring to
Stanley Moore
How long have you known Mr..
Moore?" Langdon asked.
oh, about 20 years" replied Fini-
gan.
Here. objected Stanley Moore.
this is obviously case of mistaken
identity"
The mining mans past antics were
not recalled in court yesterday but
certain of them may come up for ex-
animation today. F'inigan was one of
the incOrporatOrs of the old Califor-
MIA street railway. and afterward an
owner Of the Geary street line. His
acquaintance among men of wealth
VIII be made the subject of further
inquiry today.
SENSATIONAL DIVORCE SUIT
1t was in 1896 that the man of
wealth came most prominently into
public view, with the filing of a COM
plant for divorce by his wife who.
At the age Of 10. married him in 1884
The complaint charged cruelty, but let
tiers were introduced during the trial
which proved that during part of the
period in which Mrs. Finigan said she
was being treated in a cruel manner
---N AAe-A DCNA SCAtullE letters lnElOSlnR
the gift OF tight hugs" TO her hus-
band, and calling him a variety of en-
dearing names.
Ten years later, in January of 1906.
the suit was heard before Judge Len
non at san Rafael, and the separation
granted During the time of the trial
tlnlgan was instructed by the court
10 pay 500 month alimony. but this
he refused TO do. and spent seven
weeks N fafT - l..
Later the wife was awarded $50 per
month permanent alimony
tlnlgan stated yesterday that his
opinion was that some one gave money
10 Ruef, which Ruef was to give to the
supervisors He did not know who
started the money in circulation. but
ielt sure that the supervisors re-
ceived il.
DISTINCTION IN MORALS
A distinction in morals was made by
the talesman, for he declared that he
considered Ruefs crime not so fragrant
as that of the supervisors, as they were
pubic ONCE holders. and the political
boss was not
The most original views encountered
during yesterdays session were those
or Robert O. Duncan, a soldier of for
tune" as he described himself. Dun
can said that he was born on farm
IN Kentucky, and that he had been
COW puncher. newspaper solicitor, adj
Vertising man and half hundred other
things in the states of Louisiana, Ten
nessee and Texas. He is now in the
real estate business.
Duncan was sure of his opinions in
every instance. and once corrected
Stanley Moore in a statement of what
his views. as expressed by him earlier
In the examination, had been He was
firm in the conviction that the super-
visors were corrupt. and declared that
IF the United Railroads wanted any
thing from the supervisors there was
only one way for them to get it. That
was TO buy il"
DEFENSE is SUSPICIOUS
The defense was suspicious of Dun
can from the beginning -on finding that
he had been employed in the Delbert
building in Van Ness avenue. the
structure in which Special Agent VIII
liam J. Burns formerly had his head
quarters. Duncan explained that he
worked for a securities company there.
but the defense's attorneys questioned
him at length, returning to the charge
on his actions in the building.
Otto Anderson, a contractor living AT
13S Sixth avenue, was under examina.-
ton when the session closed for the
day. He passed successfully all the
queries put TO him. and bears all the
eligibility marks Of prospective
juror.