The San Francisco call., 1910-12-02
TWO JUSTICES
SAY GLASS WAS
JUDGED FAIRLY
Shaw and AngelIOtti Hold That
Conviction of Telephone
Magnate Should Stand
Feur Different Opinions DeIiv-
cred by Seven Jurists, Ma
jorify FavOring New Trial

D.. .Justices Shaw and Angelloth of the
supreme court handed down dissent
q ing opinion yesterday against the rul-
ing of their colleagues, in the Louis
class case. The two justices held that
no reversible error. had been. commit
red by the lower court and that the
congiction Of the telephone magnate
SHOULD stand.
"-IB an individual opinion. Justice
sioss held that the Judgment Of the
Tower court should he overturned be
caase evidence rof. the Oakland opera
tions Of the telephone company was
admitted by Judge LawIor. In all
:other respects lie adopted. the view; of
the dissenting justices on. points OF
law.
p. The decision is peculiar, fnasmuch
zs.the seven justices divided into. prac-
tiealsy four classes Justices Henshaw,
Melvin and Lorigan united in the be-
lief that the case should be reInapdec
en- four distinct grounds. Chief Justice
Beat added memorandum that he
greed with these three "'in: most par
ticuiars.' but regarded. his individual
s-leVvs as sufficiently different TO war
rant. further opinion in case he
should have time to prepare 1t. JUS
tice Sloss is in distinct category In
his opinion and Justices shaw and An
eellotti represent the fourth variety
II judicial Judgment.
in dissenting from the order Of re
VersaL Justices Shaw and Angellottl
reviewed the grounds on WHICH the
majority opinion was" based and brief
ly indicated their reasons for falling
10 concur. They hefd: that evidence Of
:the bribery of either. supervisors was
admissible as tending TO prove the
specific crime charged. They stated
that the courts Instructions. Were suf-
-rTcientlE clear TO make the. jury un-
derstand thar IT was not. 10 regard
-Zimner's refusal 10 testify. as adverse
TO the defendant The Oakland evi-
-dence they regarded as proper TO show
the settled policy of.the Pacific States
. telephone company in It's opposition 30
franchises for its rival.
The dissenting opinion, : written by
Justice shaw and cOncurred in by Jus
lice AngeuottI follows:
I.disseEt- from the judgment Of o
reversal. The evidence Of the con-
--,veTsation. between PtlsbHry and
Glass showed the familiarity of
the latter with. the inside doings
0f.the company and was competent
for that purpose, as was fully.
shown in Justice Hairs; opinion.
.s The evidence Of the bribery of
the other supervisors, as Justice
Hail shows. tenGed directly to
prove the giving of money to Lon
ergan. which was the specific crime
charged This takes # out Of the
81. rule requiring cautiOnary instruc-.
tions as TO evidence admitted for
a limtted purpose.
The refusal to instruct speci{l-
= Cd RI he mn
gully covered byanstFuCtions given.
ANY intelligent juror would know
,fherefrom that Zimmer's refusal to
testify. could not be considered.
The misconduct and uHerior pur-
poses Of counsel for the prosecu-
% ton, about which so much is said,
re foreign 10 the case 50 far
b. steis court IS concerned Miscon-
sduct is not assigned as error.
VITA regard 10 the Oakland
given concerning the previous
course OF the Pacific States tele-
3 phone and telegraph Company
toward. the rival concern. Large.
quasi public corpora tons Oper-i
atiug over an entire state are more
g. like governmental bodies than
IKE natural persons They aot in
accordance with fixed, permanent p
rules and orders akin 10 laws .
% Their. methods can not. be Judged
-bE the same standards. as those of
O. Individuals The evidence as to o.
stlie va kiatel HtallefS showed set
tied policy and design by said
company TO. vigorously oppose the .
- competing company at all points
5ustifNing an inference that there
were rules and orders to that eff
feet, which its officers were ex-'.
pected TO. follow
Glass must. have been aware Of
this and IL. would naturally incite
hlp TO more. than ordinary zeal in
endeaVoring 10 stamp out the be-
gSpnings of competition in his own
-s cOmpanys most valuable terri
tory, the city of San Francisco II
% had a distinct legal tendency TO
prove the motive TO bribe the su-
Dervlsors. If he was willing to re-
sort to such practices. and II was
admissible for that purpose The
fact that such motive would he
obyious- would not render proof of
! ii incompetent