The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, February 5, 1902, Page 12

12 THE SAN FRANCI 0 - CALL WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1902 MAYOR SCHMITZ FILES LOGICAL ANSWER TO MAHONY'S ACTION WHILE JUSTICES’ CLERK CONTROVERSY IS TAKEN INTO. CO ———— Averment by the County Clerk of Innoceace of Wrongdoing Is Refuted AYOR SCHMITZ filed his an- swer yesterday to the com- plaint of County Clerk A. B. Mahony in which Mahony de- mands a writ prohibiting the Mayor from suspending him from office the alleged commission of certain in violation of the provisions of the | ity of election laws and of jon 1; cie XVI of the charter, said acts con- | g in contracting to give certain of- dividuals in the event of elec- n their support and in accepting | ney prior to election under promise of | ength the con- and particularly sdiction or author- o suspend a county offi- 1y claims himself to be, from nied also t the Maver to summarily remove or that he has acted a conscientious offi- exercising the powers the organic law of the he answer is as follows State of Califor- county or San 1y plaintiff, vs. - Eugene - E. ¥ of the cily una county derenda . the defend- the arfidavit s, and been, i ever since duly & ' May | b Francisco | that said Superior Court has mo | ¢ either of the subject matter set | rih mplaint, of the endant, he: and id court has | | y of fort affidavit of o entertain, & determine | roceeding. | | set that the acts of the de- is sought to prohibit arc not judicizl, and that ch | n excess of the jurisdiction of | and that the right to suspend suspension of the plaintiff, as davic of compleint, are ‘and | ut the exercise of a.police pe\\(n" and cor ot San Fran- | and in exeeut the defendant, as Mayor and e officer thereof has not sufficlent information or | the subject to enable him to an- upon that ground things set forth denies the mat- in paragraph 1 of | | s informed anc believes and on | n and bellef: the office of County Clerk of county of San Francisco is a and denies that the person who | pies said office is a county | this behalf defendant, eges that said office of County Clerk of ity and county of San Francisco is and | the first Monday after the first of January, 1900, has been a municipal office, and the person holding said of- exerc d eve the wer and duties nce said first Monday after of January, 1900, has county officer, exercising pal functions and dutles, & to and acting as clerk of the said city and county, xaflmg} and s and registe: said ourt and ing charge of and eafely keeping all books records which may be filed or his office aining to said Po- vided in section 1 of chap- | of the charter of said city an Francisco, in addition to are by law impased upon of the counties of the State of ‘ defendant, as such Mayor, pend sny elected officer of ¥y and when the Mayor shall cted officer of said city and | immediately notify the Board of said city and county of such the cause therefor. If said session he shall immediately ereof in such manner as is nance of sald city and county. shall thereupon present written uch suspended officer, who | right to appear with counsel 4 in his defense. rative vote of not less than d Board of Supervisors, and entered of its . Mayor is approved, 3 officer shall thereby be re- but if the action of the d, such suspended of- reinstated. th sections 1S and harter of sald city and is of Supervi Mayor i as such Mayor, any officlal de Jcial wiledge, he delinquent_officer or person ng an official investigation { at plaintiff is such an elected of- | the County Clerk of said city and Francisco, and is subject to sus- defendant, as such Mayor, for such Mayor shail seem sufficient gations of plaintiff in para- of hi= complaint herein that he has done or committed any act in violation of the laws of the United States or any law of | ie fur- | alcation | iscon- | hall | om | the State of Califors or any law or ordi- nance of said city and county of San Fran- cisco, or comm: 4 any public offense known | 0 law, this defendant answers | Why the Mayor Acted. | That bhe. ae Mayor of the city and county of Ban Franc 0 was, at the time of the filing of the affidav of complainant herein end at the time of the issuance of the alter- tive writ of prohibition herein, investi- | Eating cer acte things alleged against the plaintiff diequalification for his hold- ffice and as cause for his suspen oval with the view of satisfying in the exercise of the discretion Tested in by law as to whether or mot there ex use or ground for the preferring | By thie ae t of charges against him be- fore the Board of Supervisors of the city and | county of San Francisco as provided by sec- | tions 18 and 19 of article XVI of the charter of said city and county, and that at the time of the filing of said affidavit of complaint and of the issuance of safd writ of prohibition | this defendant as Mayor had not = concluded | whether he would or would not suspend the | plaintiff s such County Clerk, or whether or | not he would present written charges against | said plaintiff to said Board of Supervisors as aforesaid. and at the time of the filing of satd complaint the defendant did not officiaily know nor had he determined whether the plaintiff wes guilty of feasance or misfeasance of office or whether he had or had not donme or committed any act in violation of the laws | the United States or any law of the State California or any law or ordinance of said | city and county of San Francisco, or comm ted any public offense known to law. And the defendant avers that in the exer- cise of his discretion and in his ministerial pacity es chief executive officer of the city and county of San Francisco, he would have the right to suspend the said plaintift from his said office without a investigation had he been satisfied that cause existed there- in- held in the presence of the plain- for. and that his investigation, which w rma been a | | Deane as chief depu | other purpos 1 | | | v | R e - i ANIMATED SCENE IN THE ANTE-CHAMBER OF THE GRAND JURY ROOM YESTERDAY AFTERNOON DUR. ING THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES IN THE COUNTY CLERK MAHONY PRE-ELECTION CONTRACT SCANDAL RECENTLY EXPOSED BY THE CALL. | o o3 = = = -+ HE matter of the pre-election con- | pended his signature thereto as a wit- | which business was conducted in the of- tract signed by County Clerk | ness. Charles McLane, a bartender, told | fice under Williams, ) Manony n violation of the pro- | of having been promised a position in the |/ Notwithstanding that no case can corfie FEBINY. 3 sisira lection | County Cierk's office by Mahony befone | to trial unless the fees are paid, it is a visions of the purity of electon | clection, ‘and that the promise was mot | fact that the case in point was tried by law, by the terms of which he|jept Similar testimony was given by | former Justice of the Peace Carroll, was agreed to-appoint ex-County Clerk Deane as his chief deputy and which was ex- posed by The Call three weeks ago, was taken up by the Grand Jury yesterday. It will be remembered that after the ex- | posure by The Call Mayor Schmitz held an investigation, with the result'that he was about to suspend Mahony when the latter frustrated that design by securing a writ of prohibition -in the Superior Court. The facts as brought out by the inquiry before the Mayor were brought to the atteption of the Grand Jury, with the result thAt a more searching inquiry was resolved upen. Numerous witnesses were aed and their testimony heard “ounty Clerk Deane testified that Mahony agreed to appoint him as his chief deputy and that there was a writf:n contract to that effect. The contract, he id, was drawn up by John Flood, a office, and was signed by iood and Gregory Valero as witne: “lood testified to drawing up the con- ract, and said that he had signed it with alero as witness. The contract was an agreement on Mahony's part to appoint t in hi Notary Public J. J. Deane swore that he hsd seen the contract in question, and Gregory Valero testified to having ap- tiff and his attorney, was had merely for the purpose of satisfying his own mind and of acting fairly toward the plaintiff. The defendant denies that no willful neglect of plaintiff's duty as County Clerk or officlai misconduct has come to the knowledge of the | defendant as_ such Mayor. Denies that defencant as otherwise has wrongiully or such Mayor or otherwise has wrongfully or unlawfully or in excess of juris- | diction or without jurisdietion entertained or proceeded to hear any cause of complaint or an alleged cause of complaint against plaintiff; and denies that for-the purpose of entertain- ing and hearing or hearing or entertaining or hearing sald complaint or any . complaint against plaintiff, defcndant as such- Mayor or | ctherwise has wrongfully or unlawfully assumed the jurisdiction or right to subpena witnesses or take testimony, or that defendant has wrong- fully or unlawfully subpenaed wjitnesses or taken testimony and v.pon any charges or com- plaint sgainst plaintiff, and denies that de- fendant has wrongfuily or unlawfully or in ex- cess of jurisdiction or without jurisdiction sub- mitted the matter of said complaint against laintiff to himself for decision or for any and denies that defendant as such Mayor is devpid of jurisdiction to ‘hear and entertain said complaint against plaintift or to act thereon. Charges Brought Against Mahony: In this behalf defendant alleges that on or about the 14th day of January, 1902, certain charges and complaints against plaintiff ,were brought to the attenticn of defendant as’ sich Mayor, that plaintiff had been guilty of certain in- famous crimes amounting to_felones .in con- travention of the provision of ““An act to pro- mote the purity of elections by regulating the conduct thereof, and to support the -privilege of free suffrage by prohibiting certain acts and practices thereof,”” approved February.23, 1863, and in contratention of the pro tion 7, article XVI of the charts of said cfty and county of San Francisco, which charge, | acts and offenses if true did under said act | of the Legislature and under said cherter dis- | qualify the plaintiff from holding office in the city and county of San Francisco, and if proven | might constitute cause for his removal, after Hot Rolls, hot muffins, hot cakes, made with Royal Baking Powder may be freely eaten without fear of indigestion. wherein it was charged and alleged | ions of sec- | | Harry J. Angelo and Carl Mueller, ex- | deputies in the County Clerk's office under | Deane. The inquiry will be resumed next | Friday afternoon. | FINDS FALSE ENTRY. Justices’ Clerk Fredrick Discovers { Suit on Which Trial Feces Are “ Unpaid. The Mayor's appointee as clerk of ‘he Justices' Court, Powel Fredrick, discov- ered another irregularity yesterday in the records of the office from which Ed Wil- liams resigned. In looking over the pa- pers of the case of ‘“Jake” Rauer vs. F'red H. Hood and Charles T. Bandm which was filed on December 24, I8 Fredrick found that a false entry had been made in the docket-book purporting | to show that the trial fees had been paid The entry read December 9 $3, and was written in by some person not attached to the office. S0 Fredrick immediately ordered an ex-| | amination of the cash books for five | | years past, but there was no entry to | show that the fees had in reality "been | pald. Fredrick points to this irregula las another instance of the laxity w h trial and proper proceedings had before the Board of Supervisors of said city and county. | The acts or offenses so charged against the plain- | tiff were that plaintiff had in the manth of Oc- tober, 1901, and prior to his nomination as the candidate for County Clerk by the Repub- lican local convention of the city and county | of San Franciseo, promised and agreed in writ- ing that he would procure and give certain employment in his office to certain persons in | | ccnsideration of their aiding In securing bis | nomination and.aiding in his election, and also | | that in consjdesation of moneys advanced to him by various persons he had agreed to ap- point certain.other persons named by the per- | scns advancing said moneys to positions of trust in_the office of County Clerk in the city | and county of San Francisco in the event of | his election as such County Clerk, and that he | | had carried out his said promises by appoint- | | ing_such. persons in some instances; and that | such promises were made after he -had been | nominated and while he was a candidate for | election (o the office of County Clerk. j And further that he had agreed with th | persons alleged to have so advanced .such | moneys to him that they should have the right | and privilege, and that he would grant them | | the’ busidess of discounting:at the rate of 5 per cent.per month the salary.demands of all | | his deputies and employes in the County Clerk's | | office “for the two years of his term and that | |-said persons o advancing such moneys should, | |'in_addition to the precentages of discounting | |- said salary ‘demands, be reimbursed out of the | salaries of s employes and deputies for the | advances so made to plaintiff, amount_to$3850. In addition to these charges other matters were alleged against said plaintift in. his-offi- clal ity as' County Clerk, consisting of willful misconduct in office. Debarred From Holding Office. Alleges that he is advised and belleves and therefore alleges that if sald acts and crimes, 80 charged to have been committed by plaintift 25 aforesaid, were in fact committed by piain- | tift, plaintift thereby forfeited his sald office | of County.Clerk of raid City and County of San | Franclsco, and became cver since, has been and | | now is forever debarred and disqualified from | being elected or appointed to any office or being employed in the service of said city and county of fan Francisco. i Alleges that defendant as such Mayor has | lawful - power, authority and right to suspend | | | =aid plaintiff-from his said office and that the | commission of such offenses as were charged | against him, and wiliful misconduct in office | end willful neglect of duty, if the defendant as such Mayor were convinced that the plaintift was_guilty “thereof, would be sufficlent cause | for sych suspension. A Admits that he was investigating sald charges, - offences,* willful misconduct and neg- lect of ‘duty at the time of the filing of the | complaint Rerein, and that at the time of the herein, ¥ { Denies that up to the time of filing of the | Jmove the plaintifft from his office of County Clgrk or that at the time of the issuance of the alternative writ herein he was proceeding | to suspend or remove the plaintiff as County | | Clerk in excess of his lawful jurisdiction or | otherwise. i And avers that he had not at the time of the ! filing of said complaint or at the time of the | jssuance of the alternative writ of prohibition | determined or concluded as to what action, if any, he should take in the premises. Denfes that sald charge in the plaintiff's | complaint was the only matter, question, charge or controversy pending between the de- fendant, as Mayor, and the said. plaintiff, as County Clerk, but avers that he as such Mayor | was investigating other_matters involving the | willful neglect of duty by said County Clerk and his willful misconduct. Threats of Removal Denied. , Alleges that defendant has taken no further | action upon the matter of said charge and com- plaint than that hereinabove set forth and has | Dot suspended or_removed plaintiff from said | office of County Clerk of said city and. county | of San Francisco, and has not presented any | charges against said plaintiff to sald Board of Supervisars of said city and county, and that at 20 time prior to the filing of the complaint | in the docket-nook contained no entry alleged, to |, issuance of the alternative writ of prohibition | complair.y hereln he threatened tosuspend or.re. | - postponed a number of times and finally was heard by Jhstice of the Peace Long, smo rendered judgment on January i, Fredrick complains that owing to the negligence of some official the case was allowed to go to trial without the pay- ment of fees. He blames the Justices for the oversight, and claims that they should ot cases unless the papers ' are howing that the fees were paid. mp was on the papers in the edrick claims that the fees were never paid. Fredrick is of the opinion that similar re- false entries will be found. He will port the irregularity to the Mayor, will order the books liams' entire term of the fees having been pald, though " the cases went to trial and judgments were entered. The cash books, however, showed that the fees had been paid. Assistant Clerk Robert Dennis says that the false entry made in the Rauer case was one of the several made by Harry Morris, who admitted that he had nsll out fees amounting to $124, for which he afterward made restitution. Dennis says there m: be more irregularities of the same kind, and enly a full investigation by the experts will disclose them ali, herein had he stated or threatened he would o so. Denies that defendant has threagened to do anthing in the premises in excess of his law- ful juristliction, but alleges that he, defendant, as such Mayor, intends unless ' prevented by this” honorable 'court to carefully investigate and consider such charges and complaints against defendant, and if the facts presented | to defendant warrant such action, and not otherwise, defendant may suspend plaintiff from said office’ of County Clerk of sald City and - county, and- thereupon present written charges against plaintiff to said Board of Su- pervisors as by the said charter provided. Denies that defendant assumes to, or has, | or does, or will arbitrarily exercise any power or authority whatever, but alleges that he is exercising and will exercise only such power and authority as are by law vested in him. Denfes that no action to deprive plaintiff of or remove him from said office of County Clerk can be taken except In pursuance of the terms of-an act known as the purity of election law, but alleges that said plaintiff may be suspended from sald office by defendant and removed therefrom by the sald Board-of Supervisors of URT Suit Filed to Determine Legality of Fredrick’s Appointment as C_Ierk HE. controversy between Mayor Schmitz and the Justices of the Peace relative to'the appointment of a clerk for the minor court ‘will be adjudicated in court. i The confusion which prevailed in conse- | quence of two clerks doing business. as the legal representatives of the Justiges’ Court - prompted John J. Quinn, a free- holder” and taxpayer, to file an applica- tion in the Superior Court yesterday.for an injunction restraining ‘Auditor Baehr from .auditing the 'salary = warrants of Clerk Fredrick, the' appointee of the Mayor, for services performed during the month of January. - It is also asked that the warrants of the.clerks under Fred- rick’s jurisdiction remain unaudited on the general ground' that if Fredrick's ap- pointment was illegal and of noeffect theirs cannot be legal. The complaint was filed in Judge Cook’s court, and on its reading by the court a temporary writ was granted. An order was then issued directing the Auditor to appear before Judge Cook next Satur- day morning and show cause, if any, why the injunction should not be made perma- nent. After reciting the preliminary facts that the appiicant for the writ was a free- holder and taxpayer, that the Justices of the. Peace are empowered by law to ap- point.a clerk and that they: did so ap- point one E. W. Williams as clerk prior to January 1, on which day he was sus- pended by the Mayor, the complaint re- sumes: Legality of Removal Denied. That on said 2lst day of January, 1902, at sail city and county, E. E. Schmitz, then being the Mayor of said city and county of San Francisco, wrongtully, iliegally and with- out any jurisdiction so to do, assumed .the power and authority to and did suspend from his raid office of Justices’ clerk or chief clerk of the Justices of the Peace of said city and county, the sald E. W.#Williams, and acting under color of authority, yet without jurisdic- tion so to do, did appoint in his place and stead cne Powel Fredrick, who acting under and by virtue of sald so-called appointment, and without any right or authority so to do, by forcé and arms invaded sald office of Jus- tices’ clerk or chief clerk of the Justices of the Feace, and assumed to take physical posses- sion of eald office and, the books, papers-and records filed and deposited in’ said public of- ce. ‘That a said date when said E. E. Schmitz as such Mayor assumed to suspend said E. W. ‘Williams as such Justices' clerk or chief. clerk of the Justices of the Peace, said office had not become vacant and there was no vacancy therein, and said E. W. Willlams on said 21st day of Jsauary, 1902, ‘was the incumbent of said office, and thereafter continued to be un- til and including the 29th day of January, 1802, on which said date he resigned, and on sald date sald Justices of the Peace herein above mentioned did nominate, appoint, select and eiect one Joseph Windrow 'as - Jus- ticas' clerk of said Justices' Court, or chief clerk of the Justices of ~ tke Peace of said city and county; that plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such in- formation ‘and belief alleges, that said_Joseph Windrow has duly-qualified by taking the ocath and filing the bond requized by law and hae entered upon and now is perfoming and exer- cising the duties and powers of Justices' clerk or chiet clerk of the Justices of the Peace of said city and county aforesald, according to aw. That plaintiff is advised and believes and so alleges that each and all of said above men- tioned Justices of the Peace of said city and county of San Francisco were and are and each is a constitutional State officer and none other; that the Legislature of the State of California_had duly determined the number of Justices of the Peace to be elected in the city and county of San Francisco, and has fixed by law the nowers, duties and responsibilities of said Justices of the Peace, and said Jus- tices of the Peace are duly constituted, quali- fied and acting judicial officers of the State of California, and ‘they are not and neither is a municipal officer of the city and county of San Francisco; that said office of Justice of the Peace is a creation of the constitution of the State of California, and cannot be created by and is not created by any city charter: that said Justices of the Peace have conferred upor them by authority of law the power to appoint a Justices' clerk, and that such power of ar- pointment cannot be In any wise impaired or interfered with by any other person or per- sons assuming to be clothed with authority other than said appointing power. That the Mayor of the city and county of San Francisco is without any color or. au thority of law, warrant of law. and without juriediction to' appoint a Justices' clerk or chief clerk of the Justices of the Peace to or for said Justices' Court or said Justices of the Peace, and that any such so-called appoint- ment," and _especially the appointment of said void of legal etficacy, null and void, and should be held for naught. | That plaintiff is advised and belfeves, and upon such information and belief alleges, that @ siieiiinininleivie it ik @ said city and county in accordance with the provisions of sections 18 and 19 of the charter of said city and county. Denles that, if defendant s such Mayor should suspend plaintiff, or if sald Board of Supervisors should upon charges preferred by defendant, Temove plaintiff from said office of County Clerk, it would be in contempt or violation of or contrary to any general other laws of the State of California or the Constitution of the United States or the Con- stitution of the State of California. Denies. that sald or any threatened removal of plaintiff is an irreparable or any injury to plaintiff, Denfes that plaintiff has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law, and deniés that re- lief is sought* to prevent defendant from act- ing without or in excess of his power or juris- | diction, ‘Wherefore defendant prays herein: First—That - plaintiff take nothing by .his affidavit of complaint. Second—That the alternative writ of prohibi. tion herein be dismissed and discharged, and Third—That these proceedings be dismissed. Fourth—For his costs herein. A. RUEF. Attorney for Defendant. //’ 7 i\ Is the maklnf. omy of t THE PERFECTION OF HYGIENIC - '\‘\‘\\ most perfect embcdiment of hyglenic principles in shoe- They are constructed accordin; he foot and therefore fit equally well in every part—fit to the correct an. . ot tightly —look right and feel right when you put s?l:‘egr::yu:‘,l:ng ma(gmm your approval till the last. ; Manufacturers. 9 and 11 SANSOME STREET, Factory: 134-136 MAIN STREET. San Francisco, Cal, 1f your dealer does not carry the PHIT- manufacturers. Shoe, write directly to the Delivered to any part of the United States or Can- ada on receipt of Write for $4.00. Catalogus Powel Fredrick was and is totally invalld, de- | or | ADVERTISEMENTS. NE W WASH FABRICS We will place on s lines of the following: white. NEW WASH CRE 250 pleces JAPANESE wide. checks, plaids and plat A NEW DIMITIES—- 275 pleces FINE PRINT These are in stripes, d black .and white, also are 29 inches wide. 15 cases 36-inch PRINT ity). These are grounds and all new st stripes, checks, plaids samples forwarded free to These are in a great variety of stripes, in dark, is an elegant assortment of these goods. ale this week 85 cases New Wash Goods, and will show complets NEW CHEVIOTS— 150 pleces 32-inch SCOTCH SHIRTING CHEVIOT, These come in stripes and plain colers, also plain Price 25¢c Yard PES-- WASH CREPES, 30 inches n colors. Price 15¢c and 25c¢ Yard ED DIMITY, 20 Inches wids, ots and figures, dark, me- dfum and light grounds. Price 10c Yard NEW CALATEAS— 10 cases ENGLISH GALATEAS in bluss, reds, tans, solid colors. These goods Price 15¢c Yard NEW PERCALES— ED PERCALES (extra qual- medium and Hght Price 12%¢ Yard yles. NEW CINCHAMS— : 25 cases Genuine CHAMBRAY GINGHAMS in and fancy colors. There Price 10c Yard Matl Orders promptly and carefully executed, and any address. et . n3. us, uw, 19, 121 POST STREET. said E. E. Schmitz, as Méiyor of the city and county of San Francisco, unlawfully ~and wrongfully claims the right, power and au- thority to fill the vacancy created in the office of sald Justices' clerk or chief clerk of the Justices of the Peace of said city and county by reason of the resignation of said former clerk, E. W. Willlams, from the provision of the charter of the city and county of San Francisco, ratified May, 26. 189S, mpproved by the Legislature of the Sfate of California Janu- day of January, 1900, and espectally from se tipn 4 of chapter 1, article 4, of said charter; that plaintiff is advised and belleves, and upon such information and belief alleges that said claim of said Mayor to make such appointment in sald office is without right and contrary to law, and that no power to appoint a Justices' clerk or chief clerk of the Justices of . the Peace of saig city and county is conferred upon sald Mayor of sald city and county by the sald charter of the city and county of San Francisco, or by any provision thereof. and the plainti®t is Informed and advised and so alleges that if any such power of appointment is assumed to be vested in said Mayor with respect to sald office of Justices' clerk of sald Justices of the Peace, or chief clerk of the Justices of the Peace, by sald provision of said charter, such provision, and especially said section 4 of chapter 1, article 4. s in conflict with the general law of the State of | California and contrary to and in violation of | section 814 of article i1 of the constitution of | the State of California, and is unconstitutional. | null"and void. Perpetual Injunction Prayed for. The complaint further alleges that Fredrick and his deputies filled their sal- ary warrants with the Auditor in due form, demanding pay for alleged services performed between January 21 and 31 in- | clusive, and that said warrants are ille- gal, null_ahd vold. The prayer of the complaint follows: | - Wheretore, the 1aw and the plemises con- | sidered, plaintiff prays an order, judgment and ! decree of- this court commanding and requir- | | ing that the writ of injunction issue out of and | under the seal of this court enjoining and re- straining the sald defendant as such Auditor | from drawing the warrants of the Auditor of the city and county of San Francisco in favor | of the said Powel Fredrick for the sum of | $64 50; or in favor of B.- P. Byers for the | swm of $32 #5; or in favor of George F. Au- | bertine for the sum of $32 25; or-in favor of James H. Roxburgh for the ‘sum of $32 25, and from drawing any warrant for any sum whatever in favor of said Jast named persons or any warrant for any sum whatever in favor of any or either of them, or any warrant at | all touching or relating to the said alleged | ary 26, 1899, and in force and effect on the Sth | HOME TABLE FRUITS. 1000 cases selected ripe Peaches, Pears, Apricots. Put up in heavy syrup. Of in- | terest to stores, hotels, clubs and all who buy lar; and with whom price and quality are points. Case, 2 doz., 3-pound gans, 3255 Samples open at store. |[a Single can.............. PICKLED SHRIMP, PORK AND BEANS pourd can 3 cans 2Je. Kuner's Best, with Tomato Sauce. 2- Reguldr fic. 3 for...... Qfa i WOOL SOAP, 19c cakes, § for 25e. CAMPBELL'S SOUPS, 3 tins 25e. Very Best Soft Shell. WALRUTS 35275050 s e 10e SWEET PICKLES, pint 10e. LAUNDRY SOAP e o Coe ood. pure, hard soap. Usually tins 3 for........ In ofl, mustard, spice, tomato sa Quality. Gall | 6-year-old. Rich flavor. Sample :t"sfi-]o‘ Full proof 1559. Usually soid $.00 ga BEST BONELESS BACON, Ib. 1‘411}:.?_ WHITE FIGS, 10c kind, 4 lbs. 25e. PINT O. K. WHISKY 35e. CLARET 3c gallon, 35e¢. Saturday nights from § to 1% SARDINES Underwood's Best s 25¢ TABLE CLARET Eaver's Speciai WHISKYZsiornyers Genuine. gy 75 Best Butter on salg Very best. demands of sald last named persons, or either cr any of them, in’any sum or amount of | money whatever: that the said defendant as | such Auditor be’ directed and required to be | i and appear before this court at a specified time | nd place and then and there show cause why an injunction pendente lite should not be :is- sued enjoining and restraining him from draw- | ing sald above mentioned warrants or either or any of them for or on behalf or in favor of said above mentioned parties or either or any of them, or from drawing any warrant at | all touching or relating to said alleged de- | mands or any or either of them: that the court | by its order duly made and entered In the meantime restrain said defendant as such Au- ditbr from drawing such warrants above re- | ferred to in favor of sald last mentioned per- sons or either or any of them, or from\arawing any warrant in favor of either or any of them in any amount; that upon the final hearing the sald injunction be made perpetual against sald defendant, and for such other and further order, judgment and decree in the premises as may be meet and proper and the nature of the case require. Rionhart’s Flaxseed Balsam | Wil cure your cough. 50 cents at all druggists. e Hibernians to Entertain, | Division No. 17 of the Anclent Order of | Hibernians in America will give an en- | tertainment and dance in Mission Opera Hall next Saturday. The committee in charge has prepared a very interesting programme. It will include Gaelic songs, jigs, reels, specialties by well-known min- | Strels and a one-act farce entitled “Casey's Theatrical Troubles,” in whicn | Messrs. McCormick, Gilson and Shaw will | take part. Cate Zinkand serves a substantial busi- ness men’s lunch. . ———————— Exchange Ships. S. Sandburg, chief officer of the steam- ship Sydney, and A. Ahmann, chief ofti cer of the China, have exchanged places. L ———————— JEFFERSON CITY, Mo., Feb. 4—The Su- prema Court to-day sentenced @deorge Arm- strong to hang in Platt County, March 14 for ertminal assault. This is the first sentence of death for such crime passed by the Mis- sourl Supreme Court. ——— Dr. Geo, Stallman. Dentist, 120 Sutter st.e This Driving Wagon is built in three sizes—designed forh Ladies and Children. Notice it is a cut-undef and will turn in almost its own length. TUDEBA Market and Tenth Strects. DR. MCNULTY. HIS WELL-KNOWN AND RELIABLE OLD T Decialist cures Blood Poiso, Gonorrhos, Gleet, Stricture, Seminal Weakness. Tmpotence and their allied Disorders. Kook on Dise: of Men, free. Over20yeary' experience. Terma reasonabie. Hours, 9toidally ;6:0t08. Mew'gs. Bundiys. 101to 12 Consul- tation {reeandsacredly confidential, Call or address F. SOSCOE McNULTY, M. D. Kearny St., San Francisco, Cal. CAFE ROYAL Corner Fourth and Market, S. F. Try our Special Brew, Steam and Lager, k.m;fl‘ 3