The San Francisco call., 1910-02-08

by make reference to all the rec
ordS. papers and files and TO the
evidence adduced, and particularly
10 the transcript of evidence in this
court in the case of The People of
the State of California VS.. Patrick
Calhoun. No. 1896, and by such
reference adopt the same as a part
of the moving papers In support OF
this motion.
In further support of this motion
/ hereby make reference to all the
records. papers, files and evidence
adduced in this court in the cases
of the people of the state of Cali
fornia VS.. TREY L. Ford, Nos. S12,
SIS and S23. respectively. and by
such reference adopt and make the
same a part of the moving papers
herein.
In further support of this motion
I direct your honor's attention to
the fact that the issues to be tried
in this case are identical with the
issues tried in the cases of the peo-
pie Of the state of California VS.
Patrick Calhoun. No. 1896, the peo-
ple of the state OF California VS..
Tirey l. Ford, No. S12, the people of
the state of California VS.. TREY l..
Ford. No. SIS, and the people of the
state of California VS.. Tirey l..
Ford, No. 823. of all of which this
court may take judicial notice, and
that 20 out of 4S jurors sworn to
trS the issues in said cases rem
Of the defendants therein.
QUOTES RUEF'S AFFIDAVIT
In further support of this mo-
tion | will state TO your honor that
after an Independent investigation
made by my assistants and myself
I am convinced that the only evil
dence that mi ght be adduced tend
ing 10 strengthen the position of
the people in this case would be the
testimony of one Abraham Ruef. a
codefendant in this case, who has
heretofore. in the case of people of
the state of California VS.. Abraham
Ruef ct al, No. S23, made and filed
an affidavit wherein said Abraham
Ruef swore positively and definitely
to a state of facts generating this
defendant: said statement is IN part
as follows:
That relative to said Calhoun and
said Ford, this atlant relying upon
the said immunity contract prom
ises and assurances, did state TO
said Burns, Heney and said Lang
don that he, aff1ant, never received
any money at any time from Tirey
L. Ford, or Patrick Calhoun, or
the United Railroads, for the pur-
pose of bribing, or giving, or pay
ing, or offering TO pay, or promis-
ing to pay any supervisor or public
official, and frequently so stated to
the said Heney, Langdon and
Burns, and that he was never
promised or paid any money by
Patrick Calhoun, Tirey L. Ford. or
the United Railroads, or any repre-
sentatives thereof, for the purpose
of bribing or giving, or paying,
or offering to pay, or promising to
paw any supervisor or public of1l-
cial. and the same was and is the
truth.
neither Tirev L. Ford nor Patrick
Calhoun ever spoke to this afflant
about or told this aff1ant that they
or either of them, expected him 10
bribe, give, pay ,d or ofteF 70 70 pay; @
any money to any public official or
supervisor, and this affiant so told
the said Heney, Langdon and
Burns: and this affiant has never
stated to the contrary. and the
same was and is the truth.
ACCEPTS AFFIDAVIT AS TRUE
In further support of this mo-
ton / will state that / have been
unable to get from my precedessor
any note or memorandum of the
evidence given by Abraham Ruef
before the grand jury in this case,
and considering the fact that no
charge of perjury has ever been
made against said Abraham Ruef
by the then district attorney, or
by his assistant. who then had
charge and control of the case, and
who was in a position to know
the truth or falsity Of said state
ment contained IN SAID aIUuaNll ana
for that reason il must be pre-
sumed that said Abraham Ruef
never gave any testimony con-
trary to that contained in said
afidavit. And if said Abraham
Ruef should now give testimony
contrary to that contained in his
said affidavit, it would add perjury
to his other numerous crimes. and
his testimony for that reason would
be Of little or no value to the
people in this case.
In further support of this mo-
tion ! will state that ii is now
approximately three years since the
defendant was indicted and all the
facts and evidence now in my pos
session were in the possession of
the then district attorney at the
times the cases hereinbefore EMU
merated were tried and that all of
said facts and evidence were fully
presented TO the jurors. sworn to
try said cases.
JUDGE DENIES MOTION
After Fickert had submitted his mo
tion, Judge Lawlor discussed the cod
provisions and then said:
1T is not the disposition of the cour
of NUN ranfinY1 10 tardar this Of in