The San Francisco call., 1910-11-24
Arch CRATER
MUST SERVE "a
YEAR SENTENCE
Appellate Court Decides No Re-
versibIe Error Was Com
mitted in Trial
Decision OF Tribunal Based on
Broad Principles of Law
and Justice

give Judgment without regard to tech
nicaI errors or defects or to exceptions
which do not affect the substantial
rights Of the parties" In maintaining
that principle, the court reviews the
more important of the innumerable
points which the "a volumes of the
Ruef appeal contain, and sustains the
rulings of the trial Judge, Judge Will
liam p Lawlor, and the actions OF the
prosecuting oficers-Assistant District
Attorney Francis J. Heney and Hiram
". johnson, who took Heney's place
after Heney had been shot down in the
courtroom in the progress of the trial
BY Morris Haas.
The action OF Ruef and Ach in fling
an appeal OF $4,000 pages and a brief
OF 2.400 pages IS censured by the court.
Reviews Evidence
Before entering into the law in the
case Justice Cooper reviews succinctiy
the evidence against Ruef and with II
sums up with ciearness the evidence
against the United Railroads, President
Calhoun and other officials of the COM
pany being codefendants with Ruef In
the opinion relates the connection be-
tween Ruef and the United Railroads.
reviewing, as they appeared In the
testimony at the Ruef trial, the facts
that conected the boss of the munich
pality with the street railroad cor
poration.
There is evidence" said the Justice
in his opinion. that $780, GOO was placed
at the United States mint in the city
and county of San Francisco by the
president Of the United Railroads; that
Cole, the cashier of the mint, exchanged
the gold 10 the extent OF $4,000 for
that amount of currency from the relief
fund, Of which Cole was aso treasurer;
that all this sum was paid to the de-
fendant (Rue) in currency, and that
afterward $3.50 900 more, making q total
of 100000. paid TO the defendant, also
in currency" The passage Of the money
through the hands of Ruef and CAL
lagher 20 its distribution in $4,000 lots
70 the supervisors is shown by Cooper's
decision The other graft transactions
are cited.
. CLEAR As THE sun
These corroborating facts and cir
cumstances all stand out as clear as the
midday sun" declares the opinion,
with nothing to explain them or in
any manner TO free defendant from his
connection Herewith. In our opinion
dict Of the jury, but no other verdict
could reasonably be justified"
By sheer chance Attorney Ach while
leaving the chambers Of the appellate
court after the decision had been hand
ed down, met William NJ. Abbott, attor-
ney for the United Railroads and code
fendant with Ruef in the United Rail-
roads bribery cases. in Second street
near the court Abbott greeted Ach
with z smiling face. He had not yet
heard Of the decision. Ach stopped him
and spoke a few earnest words TO him
The smile faded from Abbotts face. He
turned pale and stared at Ach with open
mouth AS Ach. having told his story
passed on rapidly. Abbott stood in the
middle Of the sidewalk following Ach's
retreating figure as II he were stunned
by the plight of his codefendant.
The decision in the Ruef case was
handed down by the appellate court at
$3.50 yesterday afternoon. The docu-
ment contained IS typewritten pages
and about $4,000 words. It was divided
into 10 sections. each one Of which con-
sidered an important aspect Of the Ruef
appeal.
The first part covered the question of
the sufhciency of the evidence against
Ruef. Enlphatically the court decided
that issue in the Affirmative.
RIGHTS NOT IMPERILED
OF the defendant that the court erred
in denying the defendants challenge
70 certain jurors. The court holds that
the rights Of the defendant were not
imperled by the trial Judge in this
matter. In discussing this point the
court dwells at length on the attitude
which a juror might have toward
newspaper account. 1t saws: ITO hold
that the publication Of the evidence OF
witnesses, given before a grand jury
or committing magistrate by ques-
ton and answer. by an enterprising
public journal would disqualify a Juror
who had formed or expressed some
kind OF an opinion upon it. notwith-
standing that IL was clearly made to
appear that he could and would. not
.withstanding such opinion. act inn
partially and fairly would in many
cases make 1t almost impossible to Sc
cure z jury.
The third point is the mooted ques- !
tion Of the information which Assist |
ant District Attorney Eeney had con- !
cerning Juror Arthur, who was called |
IN the case. The court holds that |
district attorney is entitled to have in /
formation regarding veniremen and /
that there is no law nor principle /
which requires him to devulge to his |
adversary the private information he |
has
In considering the fourth point the
court could find no act on the part of
the trial Judge, Judge LawIor. which /
would injure the rights of the defend /
ant or which were in dfspara cement /
Of the defendants counsel The court |
in considering the fifth point. rules
that the trial court did not err in ad-
hitting evidence TO show other crimes /
committed by Ruef. but that such evil
dence was rightly part of the case of |
the people. It was aso held, on the /