The San Francisco call., 1909-04-01

will now proceed to attack the legality
and regularity OF the restraining order
issued by the Judge.
Yesterdays proceedings were brief
Judge Murasky simply said: I'm the
case of the United Railroads vs.. Burns
and Cook I feel that the showing is
sufficient to make a citation against the
defendants. returnable Monday morning
at 10 o'clock.
Metson asked that the citation be di-
rected against SCHNEIDER and Russell
and Judge Murasky instructed him to
prepare the papers. Metson then d.
rected Attorney J. A. Mackenzie of his
firm to include -Hanley, Mulcahy and the
two Burns men in his citation While
Burns and Chief OF Police Cook are par
ties TO the injunction suit they do not
appear personally in the contempt pro-
ceedings ~
Judge Murasky stated that the re-
straining order still holds to protect
the safes of the company from further
search in the quest or other documents
stolen from the district attorneys Of
fee.
Do NOT FEAR CONTEMPT
Neither Assistant District Attorney
Hanley nor his colleague, Robert w
Harrison, look with apprehension on
the contempt proceedings. Both are
=
straining order can be established
1t can be shown, declared Hanley
Yesterday, that there was no suit
pending when the restraining order was
Issued. The order was issued by the
court before the papers were filed with
the county clerk and under the law no
action is started before the papers are
filed. Then, the complaint was not filed
in the county clerks Office, but with
Mulcrevy personally.
There is also the question that a
court has no power under the code to
grant an injunction to stay a judicial
proceeding, such as search war
rant is
Assistant District Attorney Harrison
would not discuss the points directly.
but he suggested a possible defense
winch may be made against the con-
tempt proceedings.
CHALLENGES JURISDICTION
Judge Murasky ruled this morning
that there was sufficient prima facie
showing to service of the restraining e
order to warrant the issuance of cita-
tion,' said Harrison. Now in oppos-
ing this contempt proceeding we might
snow that there was no action pending
at the time the order was issued: that
the court had no Jurisdiction to re-
strain the judicial act of a criminal
proceedings, and that no complaint was
on file when the order was issued Also.
1t might be shown that judge can not
grant restraining order on Sunday.
Under the constitution an Injunction
might be granted on Sunday. but the
constitution does not refer to restrain
ing orders. And Harrison asked has
a court of equity any power to restrain
proceedings on search warrant? AS
1t is, we have. not yet had chance to
rebut the points made in the case by
the United Railroads people. Our
chance to do that will come Monday.'
CITATIONS ISSUED
On the petition filed last evening by
the attorneys for the United Railroads
Judge Murasky issued the citations
asked for at the morning session Of
court The order cites James M. Han
ley. Thomas Mulcahey, Ray c. SCHNEIDER
and w. H. Russell to appear and show
cause why they should not be punished
Tor contempt of court for disobedience
OF the restraining order of the. court
march 2S- The petition was supported
py statement of facts made by w. F.
Stetler and verified statement of facts
made by Stanley Moore The Thomas
MuIcahey' referred to in the citation
is Detective Sergeant George F. Null
caf1y.