The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-05-15

Ruef to the Oak and Broderick street
offices of the United Railroads.
Attorney Lewis F. Byington OF CAL
houn's staff. who has not previously
examined any witnesses since the be-
ginning OF the trial, undertook the
cross examination of Perry, but made
woeful failure of his attempt to pick
flaws in the latter's testimony.
Byington at first laid stress upon the
fact that in his testimony at previous
trials Perry had not mentioned the fact
that Ruef had his arm across his coat
when he left Ford's Office and even in
simulated that the witness was falsify-
ing testimony by asking him who had
instructed him to give such testimony.
Nobody instructed me" answered
The witness. while O'Gara objected to
the form of the question.
Then why didn't you tell it before il
YOU deemed it so Important" persisted
Byington.
Il didn't deem it important and I
don't now was the response. 1t has
returned to my mind and so I mention
it. II didn't occur to me when I testi-
fed before"
Byington attempted, with the aid of
constant suggestions from his col
leagues. TO show contradictions in the
testimony given by the witness at
various times but his plunges and
struggles were futile. He insinuated
that changes had been made in Perry's
memora ndum book and asserted that
the witness had made six distinct
statements concerning the time at
which entries had been made Then he
failed to prove anything of the kind
and received rebukes from both court
and counsel for attempting to raise I'M
warranted differences. Then 1t was that
A. A. Moore interrupted one of Bying
tons questions and the latter sat down,
Announcing that he had finished.
On redirect examination Heney re-
ferred to the entry in the memoran-
dun book over which Byington had
ouibbled so long. and then by opening
the book blindly at various pages and
handing il TO the witness called at
tention 10 a number of other pages.
in which interlineations and ink blots
similar to those on which Byington
had laid great stress wer to be found.
Il object to this interrupted the
senior Moore, las an attempt to mega
tive the effect Of a suspicious entry by
showing other suspicious entries"
why. that's not suspicious" began
OGara, but he was sharply interrupted
by Heney, who was standing near the
witness.
"Oh. no. Mr.. O'Gara, you are wrong"
retorted Heney with deep sarcasm in
his tone. "A drop OF ink is suspicious.
I'm afraid you don't appreciate the
full significance of it"
Maybe I don't" said OGara- return
ing to his seat with a grin.
"Ah. and here's another interlinea-
ton on this page" continued Heney.
Wasn't it put in for the Interior pur-
pose Of fastening a crime on some
body?"
NO. il wasn't" rejoined the witness.
What's this?7 again demanded
Heney after another close inspection.
Are there any flyspecks on this page
that you didn't put there?'
He's not n.y. commented A. A
Moore. bitterly.
OH was the expressive rejoinder.
And now returning to this blot,
continued Heney. tell me what you
were trying to hide with it"
BLOT RUNS THROUGH
why. that's on the back of the
other page" asserted the witness, after
holding the book up to the light, and
II seems TO cover up the last letter of
the word lunch"
so you were trying to conceal the
fact that you had lunch that day, were
you?" Numbered his questioner.
NOW we OBJECT lDlS Is anu
merely waste Of time declared
Byiugton.
Then I have proved to you that it
is absurd and merely waste of time,
have II" rejoined IIeney. We'll, that's
Just what l intended to do. That's all"
Heney concluded his redirect exam
ination of the witness by introducing
the typewriter reports made by the
latter to William j. Burns from some
Of the notes referred to in his memo
randum book. He also introduced tes-
timony 10 show that the reason Perry
was not called as a witness in the first
Ford trial was that he was not then
known as an employe of Burns and
that it was deemed expedient that his
identity should not be disclosed
Charles :. Wheeler, personal attorney
for Rudolph Spreckels and one of the
original stock holders of the Municipal
street railway company. was called as
the last witness of the day TO corrobo-
rate the details of the formation of the
latter company explained upon the
stand by James d. Phelan. Wheeler as
serted that in 1905 he was attorney for
the Suffer street property owners as
argued before the street committee OF
the board of supervisors in oppo-
sition to Calhoun's proposed overhead
trolley system for Suffer street
Wheeler also explained that he
drafted the articles OF Incorporation
for the Municipal street railway,
which were filed the day before the
fire. and that in March. 1906, he
subscribed $4,000 for stock in the
company
NO OPPOSITION THEN
4 understood. said the witness.
that no opposition was to develop to
the United Railroads If Mr.. Calhoun
would place his wires underground. II
any idea of opposition was entertained
before Mr.. Calhoun announced his in
/ tention of trolleyizing his roads and
putting poles up and. down Market
street l know nothing OF it,"
An effort was made by the defense to
keep out of the record Wheeler's tes-
tinony relating TO the intentions of
1 the incorporators OF the Municipal
street railway company
The long arguments which resulted
occupied much time, and the redirect
examination OF the witness was still
under way when adjournment was
taken
There will be no further session of
! the trial until Monday morning.
Try Murine Eye Remedy in Baby's
4 r..