The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, July 3, 1902, Page 1

VOLUME XCII—- 'SAN FRANCISCO, THURSDAY JULY 3, 1902. PRICE FIVE CE LIBEL, SUIT TO BE TRIED BY FRITZ, WHO DECIDES HE HAS JURISDICTION 3 J I PO SRS S d HON ; - A. J.. FRITZ, POLICE JUDGE OF THIS CITY, AND SCENE IN COURT WHEN HE ANNOUNCED HiS DECISION TO TRY LIBEL SUIT. Pollce Judge Makes His Ruling According| to Law and Attorneys of the Governon Are Officially Notified to Attend Trial ., OLICE - JUDGE A. J.| FRITZ yesterday rief‘ cided that he has juris- diction to hear the evi-| the criminal proceed-| stituted by Attorney L. P. 1 against John D,l Spreckels and W. S. Leake, in h it is alleged that the owner the manager of The Cail led Henry T. Gage, Governor of Cal The fornia. decision rendercd by! _T"f’ce Fritz is clearly in accord- | ith ance with the law and Governor | i his attorneys now have | ity of coming into a| competent jurisdiction | nd prosecuting the alleged de-| f the gubernatorial repu- e Fritz has set next Wednesday morning at 10 lock as the hour for begin- 1g the taking of testimony in/ e libel suit. There will be nol the Governor and | ys or for the defend-| their attorn ts ar array of \\'it—1 half a thou-| Pedro, at| he purpose of | > libel suit | that travel S miles to San cost, for t heard in the| alone pleases ! e Governo COURT EASY OF ACCESS. { ¢ court of Police Jlll},'\’(‘E < | rntz is easy of access to all par ties to the litigation. The rec- { the libel suit in an hour. | visers ords of San Quentin Prison and | those from the archives at the| State Capitol can quickly be pro-‘ duced in court. The witnesses | from prominent business houses of San Francisco will be placed | at very s.ma]] inconvenience to come forward and give their tes-| timony and show their books. Warden M. G. Aguirre of San Quentin Prison will not have to| travel to the southern part of the State in order to give his testi- mony as to the charges made by | The Call against the administra-| tion of the penitentiary. With other officials of the prison and those prisoners who | may be required to testify, War- | den Aguirre can travel from the| prison to the scene of the trial of | Governor Gage and his attor- neys have pretended right along‘ that they desired a speedy inves-| tigation in court of the charges| made by The Call. GAGE MUST NOW APPEAR. The Governor and his legal ad- visers now have the opportunity | of an immediate trial, which The| Call has demanded ever since the | day Governor Gage filed his libel | San Pedro, half a thou- from where the evi-| suit in sand miles dence and witnesses are located. | The Governor and his legal a(lug cannot now resort to any tactics in order to delay the-tak- | covered the proceedings before him. ing of evidence. They have for weeks loudly proclaimed their in- | tense desire for an ‘immediate hearing of the libel suit arising | out of the charges made by The Call. In Judge Fritz's The Call will present its evidence | and fully substantiate its charges. | —_—— SUPREME COURT CASES COVER VER JURISDICTION San Pedro Complamt Does Not Bar Trial of Suit Filed in This City. The decision by Police Judge Fritz that he has jurisdiction in the criminal libel sult filed by Attorney L. P. Boardman against' John D. Spreckels and ‘W. S. Leake was rendered yesterday In a prompt manner. ‘When court convened there was a large attendance of spectators, many attorneys being present to listen to the proceedings. W. 8. Leake was in the courtroom, ac- ccmpanied by Attorneys Campbell, Pres- | ton and Barnes, and W. J. Martin, busi- ness manager of The ( Governor Gage was represented by Attorney John J. Lerman, the partner of though B. Foote and his associate, A. A. Moore, were not present to listen to the decision. The people were represented by Assistant District Attorney Whiting and | L. P. Boardman, who filed the complaint, was also in attendance. -As soon as Judge Fritz ascended the bench he proceeded to render his decision His Honor stated that he had examined the various cases cited coun- sel and had also made research for himself. He stated that the case of by | the People vs. Vaughan, 121 Alabama, 41, In tkis case a man arrested on a charge of murder was given a preliminary exami- natifon and was held for trial and admit- ted to bail. Thereafter the defendant was rearrested on a warrant for the same of- ferse and held to answer by a second magistrate. COVERS DISPUTED POINTS. On a writ of habeas corpus the Supe- rior Court discharged the defendant from custody on the ground that the second Justice had no authority to proceed and court‘ B. TFoote, | | Hearing of Testimony Is to Begin Next Wednesday. e to Present Evidence With- | out Delay. | o B - | hold the second examination. The Su- preme Court of Alabama reversed the | decision and remanded the prisoner to the custody of the Sheriff. Judge Fritz also quoted the California | decision of the People vs. Johnson, 7l L‘a],. 384, covering the same points, reviewing some of the cases cited to him by counsel and that he was ready to proceed ‘with the taking of testimony. defendants, desired an early date for the examination, saying that the defense was | ready at any time, piaint, informed the court that he was ready to rest the case for the prosecu- tion, with the consent of the District At- torney. Boardman only desired to call W. J. Martin, business manager of The Call, in order to have him fdentify a cer- tain document. The court was informed by Boardman that Warden M. J. Aguirre of San Quentin prison had been . duly served with a subpena, but had failed to attend the court, and that a second sub- pena had been issued for him, which the Sheriff had been unable to serve, Agulrre not being found in Marin County. ! at that time for attachment for Aguirre, but would leave the matter in the hands of the court. DATE FIXED FOR TRIAL. an ‘| After consulting the attorneys, Judge | | Fritz fixed next Wednesday morning at 10 o’clock for the commencement of tai- Assistant District Attorney Whiting to notify Attorneys A. A. Moore and B. Foote, the representatives .of v Governor | present. | DELIVERS DECISION" Judge Fritz Defines Law in Presence of Interested Parties, Including Gage’s Attorney. _The Court—People vs. Spreckels and Leake. The question before the court at this time is whether or not the proceed- After'| , Judge Fritz decided that he | { had jurisdiction in the case before him | Attorney Campbell, on behalf of the | Attorney Boardman, who filed the com- | Boardman said that he would not ask! ing testimony in the case, and requested | ;.onqcq the defendants into the custody | 18%, the Sheriff ow a warrant issuec Gage, that the case would be taken up | on the date mentioned and for them to be | IN A PROMPT MANNER | AN PEDRO, July 2 suit of Governor Henry T. Gage against J. D. Spreckels matter of surrender of the defendants. The court should not proceed until the disposition .of the certificate presented | June . 30, from Wittman, shall be de- ings before the Justice of the Peace in Wilmington Township is a bar to the proceedings in this court. I have ex- amined the cases cited by counsel for the defendants and have gone into some re- | scarch of.my own, and I find that the matter has been squarely decided in People vs. Vaughan, 121 Alabama, 41 In that case the defendants were arrested cn 'a charge of murder. A preliminary { examination. was held and the defendants | committed and held to answer and ad- | mitted to bail. Thereafter and while the | defendants were out on bail they were re- arrested on a warrant sworn out before | held to answer by the second Justice. A | writ of habeas corpus was sworn out be- fore the Superior Court and the Judge of { the Superior Court, or the City Court, as it was termed in that State, discharged the defendants from custody on the | ground that the second justice did not have authority to-proceed and hold the second examination. However, the Su- | preme Court of Alabama reversed the de- | cision of the Superler Court and re- lof the Sheriff. upon authority of Ex Parte Robinson in 108 Alabama, 161 THREE CALIFORNIA CASES. | The cases In California are very few. After a complete examination of {the “digest T find there are three | cases upon the point. ‘The case of People vs. Walsh, cited by counsel for defend- ants, does not decidé this point. In that case there was a waiver of examination by tho defendant, and he was held to answer by. a Justice of the Peace. There- | after, the District Judge held “a pre- | 2 magistrate for the same offense and. Luary, | was again arrested .on a warrant 1 \magis .—When the | termined. I “The objection ‘T now make,” said | Bacon, “Is that the court’s order of June | “I am not prepared to make a request at this hour,” replied Mr. Joney “and would ask tlfat court sadjourn until some | later hour.” i liminary examination and also Held the defendant to answer. The Superior Court states .that the. first holding was lm—l proper 'and that the holding of the Dis-| trict Judge was perfectly proper, but does not declde the point as to whether or no t‘ if'the first holding by the Justice of tne‘ Peace had been proper—that-is, if wi nesses had been ' sworn and examined Wwhether this would' have beecn a bar to the other 'proceedings. However, in| People vs. Johnson, 71 Cal., the de- fendant was arrested on a w 1 cn 2 complaint filed on the 1Sth of Ja 1836, - before one A. C. Justice - of the Peace of Cache Township, Yolo County, and while in the custody of the Sheriff under this warrant ued on & complaint filed or 1886, before one H. of the Peace of another township in the same county. On the last named day the | Gefendant committed by Duncan, ! and on this commitment thie information under which the defendant was’ tried convicted was filed. - On the 1ith of the 27th of Ma Dunean, a Justice by | That case was decided | Ruggles took ' the defendant before him and he was thereupon discharged. The | court decided ‘that it discovered no reason why the proceedings before the ate should affect the validity of | the information or deprive the Superfor! urt of ‘jurisdiction. I also reviewed | case of Kallock vs. The Supertor | Court, cited in 5 Cal. POWER TO TRY CAUSE. | On the authority of thése cases, gentle- | men, T decid® that T have the power to held - a - -preliminary - hearing, and, of course, the same rule would apply to the [ Justice of the | e | tried and atsmissed, F | — San Pedro Justice Does Not Care to Issue Warrants Until Judge Carroll Cook Disposesof Habeas Corpus Proceedings J court e Downing thereupon declared djourped. until. 1. o clock. The attorneys and Justice Downing got [ and W. S. Leake came up be- | 20 declaring the bail of the defendan :lr-gmhm’ at 11 o'clock .and court was re- fore Justice Downing - this | forfeited is void. " [ convened.” Ass Attorney. Jories, who morning only Attorney Bacon'| ‘Assistant - District Attorney Jones | had evideritly held @ conversation with for the defendants and Assist- | argued that there was nothing to do but | the - Governor ¢ | ant District Attorney Jones were. present, | proceed- to have the defendants arrested.| gested that ir the Governor not having arrived. Bacon | Bacon suggested that if such an order | now before Judge Cook objected to further procéedings until re-| werc to be asked of the court it be | it might be well to continue the hear- | turn shall have been made by Chief of | askéd for now in order that he might |Ings at San Pedro to some future date. Police Wittman of his proceedings in the | argue the case. As this was just wha ttorney Baeon had argued for at the previous session he quickly assented. Monday next at 3 p. m. was then mutually agreed upon as tha time for future argument. The court was then declared ad)ourned until that time. Peace down in Wilming- ton. I can see nothing in these authori- tles that would prevent the Justice of the Peace in Wilmington also proceed- ing in the same matter. There is no cuestion at all but what magistrates in a felony examination have a right to pro- @ after the defendant has once been a new complaint hav- There is no question ing been sworn out. kut’ what there is juriediction in this ccunty. On the face of the complaint iled before Justice of the Peace Down- ing, and it is part of the record of this court, he has jurisdiction of this com- | plaint. T am ready to proceed, gentlemen, wifh the preliminary examination on any dat2 that is agreeabie to counsel. Mr, Campbeil-Make it an early date, it your Honor please—say a week from We can be ready to put im our at any. time. The Court—I suppose the testimony for the people is closed—is not that =9, Mr. District Attorney? Mr.. Boardman—On consultation with the Distfict Attornev we have agreed that we are about ready to rest our case. I will state that I desire to 1 Mr. Mar- tin for one purpose; but his testimony will only take a moment. I will further state that a subpena was issued for Mar- tin J. Aguirre, the Warden of San Quen- tin Prison a subpena herz on file which served on Mr. Agulrre IngMarin County; and the return of the Sheriff of that county shows due serviee. A second subpena was also Issued after { Bfs. failure to appear here. That subpena s been returned by the Sheriff, -and There is Continued on Page Twoy