The San Francisco call., 1910-12-24
.RUEF'S new POINTS
REJECTED BY COURT
Petition for Rehearing Denied,
While Jurists Admit Inac-
cnracy in Decision
Change in Phrase0lOgy Makes
No Difference in the Ruling
Against Convicted Boss

Abe Ruef's petition for a rehearing
was denied yesterday by the appellate
court and once again the 10 volumes of
briefs prepared by the deposed boss
have been of no avail. The supreme
court undoubtedly will be called upon
TO pass on Ruef's points in support of
his petition for new trial.
In the petition for a rehearing the
defendant urged some points that were
not made In the voluminous briefs.
Ihere Is grain of sarcasm in the de-
clslon OF the appellate court, which re-
Iused to take the points seriously be-
cause they were not included in the 10
volumes of briefs
The opinion in full follows:
On TINS petition for rehearing our atten-
ZION Is called to certain statements which have
ndea IN THIS case and which are not strictly
accurate, Tha e.. we therefore order. as follows:
Of the opinion. is stricken guo out ~ Fiat all this
sun sun was paid to defendant in currency, and
of s2o oo making total
Gallagher $4,000 Of this I sum fso also s IN cur,
and in lieu thereof insert the following:
+bo tnat Gailagher as agent of and acting under
tne lnstructions of defendant came into possess
sion OF $4,000, of which sum he paid to Will
son $40, ,000'
The following portion of said opinion. found
on page 3, Is stricken out: That the money
taken from the mint. the 5000, 900, did not
Railroads. -
The following clause of the opinion. found
on page 8. is stricken out: (which order was
afterwards held void by the courts"
Inc Following portion of said opinion, found
on page pages 50 and 81, is stricken out:
The prosecution had offered evidence and
the defendant had offered The instruc-
ton therefore could only be applied to the
prosecution: AS the defendant had offered no
evidence, there was no inferior evidence on his
evidence would have been adverse If produced
could apply; AS he had offered evidence,
either inferior or otherwise, there was no evil
dence to be viewed with distrust except the
evidence on behalf of the prosecution
On this petition for rehearing the defendant
claims Tor the first time that the Indictment
does not. state facts sufficient to constitute a
pubic offense, for the that 1t fails to
aiiege that the board of supervisors of the
city and county of San Francisco had jurisdic-
tion to enact the ordinance granting a fran
chise to the United Railroads to operate an
overhead trolley system.
The proposition contended for is that the de-
fendant. after having offered to brbe men,
Der or the board of supervisors for the pur-
pose OF corruptly influencing the official action
OF said member, and after having succeeded in
procuring the action of the board In his favor
and as he desired, can now be allowed In a
court OF justice to question collaterally the
power OF the board to do the very thing which
he offered to pay its members to do
II we considered the contention as serious
it is sufficient to say that we will not now
grant rehear1ng TO consider a question which
was not even raised in the ten volumes of
briefs ON file at the time rendered our
decision.
The petition for rehearinp Is denied