Show DAY fOR CALHOUN TRIAl Forgot to Call Each Attorneys Other Names During Ex Examination Examination of Witnesses i amt amtS nation i WHEELER ON STAND c s DETECTIVE WHO SHAD SHADOWED SHADOWED SHADOWED A ALSO iSO OWED ABRAHAM REUF May Xay ari 8 Sn S Sno I F 3 for Rudolph c no t t nf ItY n fi the pro ec u stand tand by bJ ti Use fi t hk xa rid of Patrick Pat Patr Calhoun to r Ill 11 like that of Former Fer r iii Ii i Mimon u r p Uon PI Phe who pent a else lay lia the stand during durta the week eek j i h Me lt if uti ord le the statement ro 4 si du td District a Attorney Att Fra y J Jj ti refutation eft of th tile the sir j rr t I h the defense that Mr Yr r rc t 1 1 r phelan and aDd others had bad en ea eared eng g c kl kI lr If to the piraC red f fI the streets of San Fran Ri Rai t J 1 to the 1 ir luses hi MS for tor er V t O ir luses hi MS er V O tat t M of Mr Heney Ilene I t ti c be ber his appearance V rb H r told tid of e I r W p r committee o of the board c in rot I rs in iu 1 Hsi In ln relation station to the 1 Thur up I the railroad company for an sn anI D Dad fern franchise on gutter Sutter utter IrIl rl x y ad I JT V i heelers hM legal argument lit 1 rr was Wall related by Mr tr 1 c r el t i h was 15 as on the stand Mend nd and andi ii OJ o i pl i t A Wheeler ter to ta taT toa rr again sal by Mr ir r a 3 F told of hi drawing T r h articles dea of f the tb h 0 of II ft companies andi and Railway tr 1 niu i 1 LS cubs of Jh 11 W to that pro prot ri t Motives of the thc Company examination was waa w conducted T ir rf 0 ns ot of f counsel for un und n nd gul rl rears H f rr o t Heney Hesey as all a ai d iii d by b Mr e s If pr the motives motiVe of the i Aliens of f tie tl municipal coa p n Hr fr o tor r a asat tha that he had taken tak no I It of the project un uni sat t In m tn my I Mr Calhoun had intimated bin hla i 1 of r Market street net that it was wan only to combat t i ud 1 in n at sl plan thet the opposition oy Ion company new Mr did the municipal com cart fT Her U ht lar a foot of f rock track or a single at anY ain an brick of or a power ho e asked ed Kaisers It did ltd nut nil 0 fl said Id the wit lie That i la all said Rosen Rogers VT Wh did not nt the Municipal company a font of f track or a single brick of ef ev po por T house bouse Explain Espial that to the jury Jan Jul Mr lr Wheeler said Mid Honey Indr a running crossfire fin of objections and anti arguments ar the th witness wit esa told taid tile the jury i thai ai the opposition had bad phi natal MI Iy for f r the purpose pur he had already alray stated slated ted that it was specifically stated in la the tINt arti articles rite cles of incorporation that the company should rat get t the euper supervisors to otter offer such sueh franchises as it sought BOucht at public auction and n should seek k to have Inserted I ed In those shone franchise a provision that the city could bu buy up the road at any y time it saw lit fit Big Fire Stopped Everything We fixed upon the coat cost of 0 construe construction tion tinn th the actual outlay plus 6 per cent ant as M the price at which b the city could ouM secure the property of the corpora corporation tion non at an any time said id Mr Wheeler T Then Tilen len the fir fire came The United ratted t Ran Rall procured its franchises and we did not fat ee lief our wa way clear to going ahead TV The examination tion earlier In the day of or Robfrt H Perry Pem one of the this detectives William J 1 Burns Bum whose bust busi saes vs s It h was Ras 15 in m H 1 to shadow Abraham nu f bore more mort directly oa at the case calle a Wl abar Sr bar ar as r rr told et f having trailed d Jef ef in rn t 1 itt I nu d Railroad RaI office oai a on n 3 of that year ear till the date on which the alleges the money drawn dr wn n fn rom m the minI mint b by Tirey ire ToO L T Ford general oun p for the tho th was paid over overto overo 10 to o be lIP divided a among the supervisors |