The San Francisco call., 1910-07-07
RUEF'S HEALTH
FORMS THEME
Of ARGUMENT
Legal Right of Court to Send
CRATER Back TO Jail Is
Also Denied
Judge LawiOr EnIivens Session
by Questioning Attorney
OF Fallen Boss

Aao Ruers effort to keep out of
jail reached the argumentative stage
before Judge Lawlor yesterday and will
probably be in its evidentiary period
this afternoon. when witnesses will be
on hand to testify what effect further
Imprisonment OF the convicted CRATER
might have
Ruef was without the battalion of
legal talent which surrounded him in
the days OF his trial, but he was we'll
represented. Attorney Thomas B.
DoZier made the argument for him.
With Ruef was also Attorney George
Keane. Major West. one OF Ruefs
faithful followers. was in court during
the morning, and Colonel c. A Garter
was also present, as was Ruef's loyal
Office boy. Charles Haggerty.
Assistant District Attorney Berry
who will answer Doziers argument.
offered no interruption during the pro-
ceedings. but Jtdge Lawlor, from the
bench, questioned and quiZzed Dozier on
points as they would arise. contribut-
ing what enlivenment there was to
the proceedings.
AUTHORITIES CITED
The question at issue is purely
statutory as TO whether or not the
superior court has the right to re-
commit Ruef after he has once been
Sfeleased on $780, 600 bail and his case is
pending on appeal before the state dis
tFict court OF appeal Dozier cited
many authorities to support his con-
tention that the court had no such
power.
One point raised by Judge Lawlor
in his order to show cause why Ruef
Should not be committed was that the
health Of the defendant was normal,
while one reason for his release was
that his health was being impaired
by incarceration
Dozier, IN illustration of his point
cited the hypothetical case of a pris-
oner whose eyes might become i'm
paired by confinement. and asked that
81 man liberated pending appeal to
save his eyes should be recommitted
and put under the same disadvantage
GUS conditions when his eyes were nor
NAL again. only TO have mis- sight once
more put in jeopardy.
Dozier opened his argument by read
Ing Ruefs formal answer to the order
TO show cause. There were four main
points TO Dozier's contention. The first
was that the superior court had no
authority to pass on the case of Ruef
IS the judgment OF the superior court
was at present under the consideration
Of the district court of appeal Second
that the court, under section 1910 OF
the penal code. had no authority 10
recommit a man to jail save for reasons
which were not introduced in the pres
ent order. Third, that Ruef was liber-
sted on s250,O0O bail under an order
Of the court dated December ?, 1909
and that that order was still in effect
and could not be revoked by the same
court Fourth, that the order to show
cause issued by Judge Lawlor did not
make a sufficient showing.
SIGNED BY LAWYERS
The answer was signed by Dozier
and George B. Keane, attorneys for
Ruef
In his opening argument Dozier said
that the court had authority in De-
cember last to make the order admit
ting Ruef TO bail
Judge Lawlor raised the point that
If the court had no authority now what
authority did it have in December last?
TO the general question OF authority
al that time Dozier replied during his
argument that if the ruling Of Judge
Csbaniss had been illegal or improper
District Attorney Langdon, then in Of
fee, had the right TO appeal to the
higher court over the jurisdiction of
the superior court
Dozier went into the question of ad- /
mission OF defendants TO bail. He said /
that before conviction all defendants. /
save in capital cases, were constitu-
tionally entitled 10 their liberty After /
m;tted TO bail as a matter of right |
when they were appealing from a /
judgment that involved fine only, 1
when they We're appealing from q mis- /
demeanor conviction or when, in GER
tain felony cases, the court exercised |
its discretion in the matter.
DOzier insisted that in this ca Sc the /
court exercised its discretion
Lawlor asked If the superior court /
was powerless to recommit, no matter |
under what condition of health or cir |
cumstances the defendant might be in I
Ruefs attorney replied that ii was
save in certain instances which did not /
arise in this case.
Suppose" said Lawlor, "the court !
had evidence that the defendant might /
levsnt from its jurisdiction?"
The court could not assume that the |
defendant would levant," replied Do
EieT.
But the court has the inherent
power to protect its own processes"
answered Lawlor.
The court has not TIE right to take
judicial notice OF the defendants
health said Dozier. But in conclud-
3ng his argument he insisted that re-
4 llcarceration would do Ruef an injury
rkfiich the people had no right to in
licf.