This action left the Prosecution free to proceed with Ruef’s trial without any possibility of the proceedings being questioned later.
Judge Dunne ruled that Ruef, being a fugitive from justice, and his trial one for felony, at which the defendant must be present at every stage of the proceedings, there was no trial before the court. Shortridge was in the position of counsel without a client. During the examination of Coroner Walsh, after his failure to find Ruef, Shortridge insisted upon interrupting the examination. Judge Dunne after repeated warnings, found Shortridge guilty of contempt of court, and sentenced him to serve twenty-four hours in jail. The Chronicle of March 9, 1907, contains the following account of the incident:
“Have you not said,” Walsh was asked by Heney, “that you hoped he (Ruef) would be acquitted and that you would do all you could for him? Are you not in sympathy with him?”
Again the Coroner quibbled and Judge Dunne ordered: “Answer the question. Do you sympathize with him or not?”
Still the witness hesitated, and again the Judge asked with vigor: “Are you in sympathy with him?”
“If he is innocent I am in sympathy with him, if he is guilty I am not.”
“I suppose you wish it to appear that you are not in sympathy with him so that you may take charge of the jury,” suggested Heney.
Samuel M. Shortridge, one of Ruef’s lawyers, here said that he objected on behalf of his client to the line of examination.
Heney proceeded without paying any attention to Shortridge’s interruption. Shortridge again entered an objection, and Judge Dunne ordered him to take his seat.