The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, July 12, 1902, Page 4

4 THE SAN FRANCIS 3 O CALL, SATURDAY, JULY 12, 1902. AN KEVANE. ACCOMPANIES GOVERNOR GAGE INTO JUDGE SLOSS' COURTRODN AND CREATES A SENGATION BY DROPPING A BI6 GOLT'a REVOLVER N FLOOR R T iz D I P tlt' | eclare reuton L] ‘ Justice . | ——— - | i ; i 1 | TheHearing Goes | ! . | Over Until | onday. B +* trick and device to defeat the jurisdiction of the said Justice and prevent any ex- amination of said charges against said i defendants in the said Justice’s court and any trial thereof in Los Angeles County. | Afflant on ihfurma(iondandd rboll[e; tfl;z:s and charges to that end and for that pur- ATTORNEY ;Z;’e‘cb}f Follusion. preconcert and agree- PReESTOoN POoIMTSs ment between said defendants and said OUT THE EXPENSE X P I OF a, TRIAL AT T | Sac PEDRC | | = | g roe P h.b't‘ W 't‘ Is Argued by | Lawyers. . Call's Attorneys | E tl xecutive, | UPERIOR JUDGE SLOSS yester- | | day h of counsel on hibition that res shall be | | BAd KBEVANE AND | Say s 5 REMRY T GAGE LISTEN TO 5% § "PANTKEVANE CAUSES ATTORMNEY PRESTON’S Sabeiad e COMMGCTION 1M COURT BXCOoRIATION is alleged the man- | | g ager of The ( chief execu s T R . ————f fornia, # g i SCENE IN JUDGE SLOSS’ COURT WHEN DAN KEVANE DROPS BiG REVOLVER, AND ATTORNEY MAKING ARGUMENT. Sloss d at the | - i P il | 5 i2 5 4 b R R L2 -+ | Boardman, the said Boardman on June 23, ety B 1 | 1992, appeared before A. J. Fritz, a Judge eedings - 3 | i ¥ & T A el | of ge Police Court of the city and county £ A RGUMENTS were made yesterday befgre Superior Judge Sloss on the <orit of prohibition issued by Judge Murasky at the request of Governor Gage, in order that of San Francisco, who was and is the wheels | | S ks - : 5 ; G 1 s ; 3 A | to bail as herein s . and the a speedy trial | | Police Judge Fritz might be prevented from hearng the evidence in the swuit for criminal libel filed by Attorney Boardman against Messrs. Spreckels and Leake of then made complaint againet the said sdiction of | | . k Spreckels and Leake, and in and by which the ch ; The Call and ! The Call. ¢omplaint the “said’ Boardman, without g ey o e ; ; : ! £ : e knowledge or consent of amiant Pkt o at g “}‘e‘x“ . i Governor Gage attended the proceedings before Judge Sloss and listened to the arguments of counsel closely. He frequently consulted with Dan Kevane, his petitioner, and agalnst his will, charged “sent: EEVANE DISPLAYS REVOLVER. Dan Kevane, secretary to the State Board of rs, chu of the Gov- ernor and forn utside law part- ner” of Gage, accompanied the chief executive a sat beside him during the court proceedings. Kevane made a display during the aft- in the front row of spec k th a 44-calibar revolve g by his side. It markable commentary upon the stration of judicial affairs in ate at the chief executive of California shall brazenly attend the decorous session of a court of justice accompanied an armed body guard who drops his weapon of death upon the floor of the courtroom and still more brazenly displays the murderous weapon by his side after it is handed to him by a spectator to the proceed- ing. The decorum of the proceedings was suddenly disturbed at 3 p. m. by the sound of a heavy revolver falling from Kevane's pocket to the floor. A spec- tator picked the weapon up and handed it to Kevane, and the latter brazenly declined to put it out of sight, but placed it where every one could in- spect the dangerous weapon. When court adjourne volver in his hi Kevane placed the re- pocket and escorted the Covernor out of the City Hall to the Palace Hote John D. Spr s and W. S. Leake were present in court, together with Business Manager Martin of The Call. Attorneys J. C. Campbell and E. F. Preston represented the defendants and the resp to ndent. Judge Fritz, while At- A. A. Moore looked after the ts of Governor Gage. Attorney P. Boardman, who filed the criminal iibel suit in San Francisco, was also in court DEMURS TO GAGE'S PETITION. Attorn Preston behalf of the responder Judge Fritg, epening argument to show that the pe- tition for writ of prohibition filed by Gage hould not be made perma- nent. He stated that he desired to answer the plea for a writ by a general da- murrer on the grounds that the peti- tion did not state facts sufficient to outhorize the writ; that the petitioner had failed to show that the respondent, or Police Court No. 3 of the city and county of San Francisco, had not juris- diction of the persons or subject mat- ter which the respondent is proceed- ing to determine; that the jurisdiction on the | of firearms | | the same. ['their bondsmen to the Chief of Police i | | ! fendants in the Boardman suit pro- {that it was a serious thing for hid the weapon in his hip pocket. [ Attorneys J. C. Campbell and E. F. Preston made the arguments on behalf of the respondent, Judge Fritz, and filed a gencral demurrer to the petition for a T‘frit | of prokibition. They cited mumerous decisions to show that Police Judge Fritz had complete jurisdiction to hear the cvidence in the Boardman suit, and that such hearing 1 would not bar the hearing of the suit filed in San Pedro by Governor Gage. The attorneys for the respo adent also denied that the suit filed by Boardman was collusive or fraudulent, as charged by Gage in his petition, and clearly outhned rulings to prove that as Judge Frits had jurisdiction no writ of prohibition could lic. - Attorney A. A. Moore made the argument on behalf of Governor Gage, and covered the same points as were made a few days ago when he appeared before Police Judge Fritz and asserted that Fritz had no Jurisdiction. While Moore was in the midst of his argument and claiming that the Boardman suit was collusive and fraudulent, Judge Sloss adjourned the further hearing of the proceedings until next Monday “morning aqt half-past former “outside law partner” in Los Angeles, and was not disturbed when Kevane caused a commetion in court by dropping a big revolver from his tocket, to the alarm of | every onc sitting near him. Kevane was handed the revolver by a spectator and placed the weapon beside him on his chair, waiting until the session of court 10. was ended ere he exercised in the proceedings sought to be prohibited is that of a committing magistrate, ard that it did not appear that the petitioner, Gage, is a party beneficiary interested in the proceed- ings or that he had a right to maintain the defendants desired to call more than 100 witnesses before Judge Fritz, Attorney Preston said that it was a far more serious matter for Governor Gage to propose that these witnesses be compelled to travel half a thousand miles and back in order to attend the trial that Gage insists must be held at San Pedro in order that the alleged attack on his reputation be wiped out. Attorney Preston then dealt with the charge made by Gage that Boardman had filed his suit acting in. collusion with Messrs. Spreckels and Leake. He pointed out that Boardman had acted according to his legal rights, and that Judge Fritz had decided that he (Fritz) had jurisdiction. Attorney Preston then cited numer- ous decisions, all of which- bore out his argument that there was nothing to prevent Judge Fritz hearing the evi- dence in the suit filed by Boardman and that the proceedings in Judge Fritz's court would not act as a bar to those instituted by Gage at San Pe- dro. Preston ridiculed Gage's assertion that he (Gage) had no adequate rem- to hear the evidence in the Boardman | edy if Judge Fritz tried the Boardman suit and hold the defendants for trial. [suit. Preston said that Gage could He argued that the decisions clearly | come into court if he so desired and showed that even if Judge' Fritz did .give his testimony and defend his rep- not hold the defendants for trial that | utation. such an act would not bar the pro- CLOSES HIS ARGUMENT. - ceedings commenced 2t San'Pedro bY | y; aipsing his argument’ Attorney SEORTIOE (avE- | Preston sald that the people of Calf Attorney Preston maintained that as ]f Tassn, B i R l“ e & riatd he jaw clearly defined the powers of | fornia were the plaintiffs in the libel t! Sampide iy | suits and that the writ of prohibition committing magistrates, and as Judge i ri. | could not be used for personal feelings Fritz had the right to hear the evi- or private malice, dence in the Boardman suit, that the | s i writ of prohibition could not lie. The writ of prohibition could only | be used, argued Preston, where it The allegation of Gage that the de- | o 0°F0 070 %ot o court oF magin- !trate did not have jurisdiction of a | subject matter or usurped the rights of | a superior court. | When Attorney Preston closed his | argument, Attorney Campbell Attorney Preston then reviewed the history of the libel suit filed in San Pedro by Governor Gage and the ar- rest and release of the defendants on bail and their subsequent surrender by of San Francisco. This was followed by the reading of the petition of Gage for a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Fritz hearing the evidence in the libel suit filed by Attorney Board- | man against Messrs. Spreckels and Leake. FRITZ HAS JURISDICTION. | Attorney Preston argued the demur- rer at length and maintained that there were numerous authorities to show that Judge Fritz had the power posed to introduce immaterial evidence, and that they would be dismissed by Judge Fritz, called forth a stern repri- mand from Attorney Preston. He charged that Gage had insultsd h y u itz nd s the dignity of Judge Fritz's court and |/ i ot prohibition should ot bs main: Governor to assert that Fritz had made | {ained, and the court then adjourned | for a Tecess. up his mind to discharge Messrs! | Spreckels and Leake without having On resuming in the afternoon Attor: heard the testimony In the libel suit. | 2&Y 4 A Moore, on behalf of Gover- PRESTON SCORES GOVERNOR. | practically repeated the speech he Regarding the assertion by Gage thal ' made some days ago before Judge cited | | numerous decisions to show that the | Fritz when the question of jurisdiction was argued. Moore: claimed that the Boardman suit was a fraudulent one and that the courts should not be im- posed upon. He insisted that a man could not be tried twice for the same offense, and that Judge Fritz would really “try” the defendants in the libel suit. MOORE IS SHUT OFF. Moore took up considerable time in defining the law of criminal libel and argued that the Legislature had given an aggrieved person the right to select one of two places where he could file a sult for criminal libel. He said that Governor Gage had elected to file the suit in the county where he resided, but said nothing as td’'the enormous cost and inconvenience that would be entailed if 100 witnesses were compelled to go to San Pedro in order to satisfy Governor Gage’s feel- ings of “sentiment.” Dan Kevane's display of firearms oc- curred during Moore’s argument, and the attorney for the Governor smiled when he saw the cause of the inter- ruption. As Moore was disposed to talk at considerable length, Judge Sloss cut short the arguments of Gage's law- yer and said that he would continue the proceedings until 10:30 a. m. on Monday next. SLOSS LISTENS TG ARGUMENTS OLATTURNEYS Campbell and Preston Show Why Prohibitive Writ Cannot Lie. I:OLLO\\'ING is a stenographic report of the proceedings in Judge Slo: court yesterday, where the writ of prohibition restraining Judge Fritz from proceeding with the trial of J. D. Spreckels and W. S. Leake came up for argument: Mr. Preston—If your Honor please, we rresent here objections arising on the face of the petition in the form of a demurrer, 4 copy of which has been handed to M. Mcore, and we think possibly this de- murrer will dispose of this petition, and |'we will not encumber the record with an answer until there is a decislon requir- ing it. 1 will not read this petition, but will state the facts of the case. The affidavit is by Henry T. Gage, who swears that he has been for twinty years last past con- tinuously a resident of the ‘county of Los Avgeles; that H. C. Downing was at that time and is now a Justice of the Peace of Wilmington Township, of the county of Los Angeles, State of California; that cn the 14th day of June of this year Dcewning was in the discharge of his | Guties as such Justice; that on the sameé gate afflant appeared before Downing, Justicc of Wilmington Township, and made a complaint under oath, in and by . which complaint afflant accused and | charged John D. Spreckels and W. 8. | Leake with the crime of publishing and | cireulating in the county of Los Angeles | a mallcious libel and distorted picturg and | defamation concerning the afilant; that ‘ a complaint and information was in writ- | ing subscribed to, and that it is in the | words and figures following. As we make | no point on the form of the complaint, I | bardly think it is worth time to take up | your Honor's time in recdlnf it in ex- | tenso. I will simply say that it is the or- | dinary complaint lodged before a magis- | irate as to the commission of an offense | which charges the libel, sets it out with in- nuendo and then alleges that there was a | rortrait which was distorted and which of itself also constituted a libel. That they | were circulated in the county of Los An- | geles; that the portrait gave the afflant | a vicious, malignant and criminal face, and | carried the idea that the aflant was then | and there a viclous man and a_criminal; | that the libel was circulated in the town- ship of Wilmington, contrary to the form of the statutes; and the ~compiainant, upon due oath, accuses Spreckels and | Leake and prays that a warrant may is- ste for the arrest of the defendants. and | ;h.—n they may be dealt with according to aw. The petition then proceeds with the pro- | ceedings before the Justice of the Peace; ! that that complaint was flled and that | the Justice thereupon issued a warrant | on the 14th day of June, directing the ar- | rest of Spreckels and Leake, and thatl‘ they be brought before him, with the alternative, in his absence, before thw rearest Justice of the Peace; that the warrant was entitied “In the Justice's R Court of Wilmington Township”'; and that on the same day the warrant was deliv- ered to\ Hammel, who is alleged to have Leen duly elected Sheriff of the county of Los Angeles, and that by virtue of that warrant Hammel arrested Spréckels and Leake, and that the warrant was stamped | and indorsed by A. J. Fritz, then a Judge ¢f the Police Court, with the permission that it might be served in the city and county of San Francisco; that upon the arrest the defendants were taken before Fritz as a magistrate and that they gave bail, and the bonds were approved, and they were thereupon released, and that Hammel accepted thie bail bonds and re- turned the warrant of arrest to the Jus- tice of Wilmington Township, setting forth the arrest and their giving ball, and the bail bonds were filed with Downing, | Justice of the Peace. READS AFFIDAVIT. That the defendants, Leake and Spreckels, have never been in_ the county of Los Angel¢s since the 14th day of June, nor have they anpeared before the Jus- tice, but as affiant is informed and be- lieves, and so states—1I think I will have to read this portion of the affidavit, your Honor, but it is the charging part of | the complaint upon which the case rests ard 1 will read the whole of it: “Neither of the defendants, Spreckels and Leake, have ever, since the said 1ith day of Jure, 1902, been in the county Los Angeles, nor has either of them since that day or at all appeared before the ! sald Justice at sald Wilmington Town- ship or in sald Justice’s court, but to.the | contrary, as afflant is informecd and be- | lieves and so states, each of sald de-| fendants has steadfastly refused to ap- pear In sald court or before sald Justico | and has remained absent from the said county of Los Angeles, giving out and asscrting that he would not so appear ' or submit to examination or trlal, not-! wlthnnndlng. as the fact is, that the said Justice on June 2i, 1902, after the filing and return of the said warrant and the sald bail bonds, by order duly given, made and entered upon the docket of sald court, fixed the 30th day of June, 1902, at 11 o’clock a. in. of sald day, for the examination of sald charges and ordered and directed the sald defendants then and there to appear, | and notwithstanding due and timely no- tice of the sald order was given to each | of sald defendants. Petitioner is informed and belleves and so_avers that on or be- fore the 234 day of June, 1902, the defend- ants, Spreckels and Leake, combined and | confederated with one Louis T. Board- | man, who was and is a stranger to af- fiant, petitioner, merely on speaking terms, acting without authority from and | against the wish of aflant, petitioner, and fraudulently schemed and contrived by | of | 5 | court statea that he had not b the said defendants with the publication of the same matter charged as aforesaid in the complaint made by afflant, peti- tioner. The said complaint was entitled: *‘In the Police Court of the city and county of San Francisco, State of Cali- fornfa.’ The same set forth the fact that om June 14, 1902, affiant did appear before H. C. Downing, a Justice of the Peace of Wilmington Township, county of Los An- geles, State of California, and make com- plaint and depose under oath that the publication charged as libel in the com- plairt of Boardaman was libelous and did in his complaint charge the said Spreck- els and Leake with having committed the offense of libel with publication thereof. The saild complaint of the said Board- man set out in full a certified copy of the complaint of affidavit made and filed in Los Angeles County, and charged the same identical matter described in af- fiant's complaint to be a libel on affant. FIXES RESIDENCE. The said complaint of sald Beardman did not charge any circulation or pub- lication of the libelous matter within the ccunty of Los Angeles, but averred the publication office of the newspaper con- taining the libel to be at the city and county of San Francisco, with the aver- ment that the defendants published in the said newspaper the libelous articie described in the complaint of affant, without other statements of where they published the libelous matter, and said complaint of the said Boardman further falsely and fraudulently set forth that at all the times charged afflant was § resident of the city of Sacramento, State of California. Upon the charge so fraud- uiently and collusively made as aforesaird, a warrant for the arrest of the defende ants named was at once {ssued; the de- fendants were arrested and gave bail and, on the same day, on_request of defend- ants, the said Police Judge set the exam- ination of the sald charges for 19 ¢'clock a m. of June 24, 1902 (the following day). On June 24, 1902, in the said Police Court peared the said defendants and their nsel and the said Boardman, who then and there assumed the position of prose cuting attorney and prosecuting witness, and this inasmuch as the proper officer of the court had never.been advised with or consulted, and knew nothing of the facts, affiant is informed and belteves. On id 24th day of June, 192, the said court lled the cause, whereupon the defend- nts by counsel suggested to commence e examination on June 25, 1902. The prosecuting officer stated to the court that he knew absolutely nothing of the case, and that it had been instituted by the sald Boardman. Thereupon coun- sel for the defendants announced that he 1d the said Boardman would agree to ke up the case on the following Friduy morning, June 2ith, and thereupon hy such agreement between said counsel and sald Boardman the sald court set the ex. amination for Friday, June 27. On Friday, June 27. 1902, the defendants, with = thefr counsel, appeared in said ceurt, and therecame also the said Board. man. The defendants announced them. selves ready, as likewise did the said Boardman. The prosecuting officer of tha cen sulted by Boardman with reference mmt)x?; facts or any witness; that Boardman had brought witnesses, and he supposed Boardman would examine them. The saiq Boardman _stated that the officer had sald he wished o hass nothing to do with the matter, which | statement was denied by the sal cuting officer. Thereupon the m? é’:.." = T Continued on Page Five,