The San Francisco call., 1910-08-04

On April 25. 1910. an application
was made by Patrick Calhoun, TREY
L. Ford, Thornwell Mullally and VIII
liam NJ Abbott to dismiss the indict-
ments against them. The appliea-
tion is before the court at this time
for consideration.
guilty they exercised their statutory
right and each demanded severance
from each other and from their CO.
gene E Schmitz. (section 1898;
Penal Coded There have been five
trials-three of TREY L. Ford and
one each of Abraham Ruef and Pat
rick Calhoun.
The second trial of Patrick CAL
houn was commenced on July 9,
1909 tease No. 1870. Owing to the
illness OF one of his counsel the trial
was suspended on August 16, 1909.
and resumed on September 80. 1909.
On the following day the trial was
ordered continued until November
Is, 1909. on motion Of the defendant.
upon the ground of the. pendency of
municipal campaign.
On January s, 1910, Mr.. Charles
NJ Fickert assumed the Office of dis
trict attorney.
On February I; 1910, the district
attorney moved the court TO dismiss
the remaining charges against these
defendants (section 1885, Penal
Code), which motion was by the
court ordered denied. (Section Z,
article /, and section 10, article 6,
Of the constitution: sections f041,
Io42. 1925, 1885. 1885 and 1887,
Penal Code.)
announced that they were ready TO
resume the trial in case No. 1437
against Patrick Calhoun, but the
court continued the case for trial
named day the cause was ordered
continued for trial until April IS
1910
on April %. 1910, the four defend
the remaining indictments against
them. The further hearing of the
motion was continued until July 80.
1910. On the latter day the causes
were continued until this time.
Two things are chiefly responsible
for the courts action in respect to
the remaining indictments since the
district attorney moved to dismiss
them on February {. 1910. First, the
courts apprehensions based on the
declared attitude of the said district
attorney toward the remaining in
dictments, and, second. the absence
from the state of James l.. Gala
CHER, material and indispenSa BILE
witness in the said causes. The
second reason will now be consid-
cred.
1t was the theory of the people in
the five trials referred to that Abra-
ham Ruef represented the defend
ants in the alleged bribery of the
members of the board of super
visors. and that James l.. Gala
CHER, one of its members, in turn
represented Abraham Ruef in the
transactions. In this way the court
is able To determine that the testi-
mony of this witness is material,
and now holds, as a matter of law,
that unless additional testimony is
produced. it is indispensable to the
establishment of the res gestae.
7odo In the 4 ea; early part Of Peeember zee;
ness had departed from the state.
Up to the present time it has not
been shown whether he had been
wise under the authority of the
court TO appear as a witness in the
trials of the remaining indictments
If he is subject to the authority of
the court in any of those cases his
absence would constitute criminal
contempt. and he could be extra
dited from any other state having
provisions Of law similar to those of
this state, Sub. 4, section 166, and
section 154S, Penal Code.)
In this connection it may be
proper to point out that practically
ever since issue was Joined on these
indictments they have been on the
calendar for trial. and that during
the trials referred to the cases not
actually on trial were from time to
time called and the witnesses ad-
lnOnlSle0 bX the court TO appear OIL
the deferred date But it has not
been ascertained whether in this
manner the missing witness has
been so admonished to appear so far
as the remaining indictments are
concerned.
In the month of January, 1910, the
court directed that all persons who
could give testimony concerning the
absence of the witness be subpe-
naed. On January "a, 1910, the first
hearing was had and on several oc-
casions thereafter witnesses have
been orally examined on the subject
From this oral testimony it is diff
ficult to determine the intentions of
the witness concerning his depa rture
from and his return to, the state It
seems that in the latter part of No
vember. 1909. he left for Europe,
accompanied by his wife Robert F.
Gallagher, a brother of the witness.
testified in effect that the witness
never stated he intended to absent
himself as a witness in the graft
cases and made no suggestion of
that nature; that he. Robert F. CAL
lagher, gained no such impression
from anything he did say, except
that that it was a disagreeable sit
uation for him to be a witness, and