The Nevada journal., 1858-11-26
The PeOpIe vs.. VIM I. Barbour.
EDITOR JOURNAL

correct few arrors-typographlcal-
which accidently crept into the 1st and
End acts, published by you two weeks
ago. The fl. st error, of any note, is to
be found in the paragraph commencing
with the words 4" The first term of that
court in Nevada Co." In the 18th and
10th lines, l am made to say, after stat
ing that the papers in the case had been
stolen from the Clerks Office, that. they
had been sent up The word not has
been left out between the words had and
been. 1t should read they had not
been sent up, &C."
In the last paragraph, beginning with
the words I" In 1855, think at the Feb
term" two errors occur, one i'll the oath
line and one in the 9th line, in the oath
line choose is substituted for chose
and in the 9th line fourth is printed
| forth. These are all the material
errors | have discovered and / only
call your attention to them that l may
not be criticized too severely for the
commission of errors which, perhaps,
should he laid g my door in consequence
|
With this explanation, l will COM
mence my narrative of the events con-
| nected with the suit of the People VS.
| VIM. Il Barbour, indicted by the Grand
Jury of fuba County, in Nov 1854, for
felony, at precisely the place where
closed the I'd act, which, your readers
will remember, was at the point where
the cause was returned to Yuba County
for trial.
AT the April, 1854 term of the Court
Of Sessions, in Yuba County. the case
was again called up. AS a matter of
course, was there, with all the wit
nesses for til people, ready and anx-
ious that the case should be investigated
Barbour was also there, with his counsel,
Stephen j. Field, Esq When the case
was called, JUDI dge Field moved to dis
charge his client, upon the ground, that
the law, under which the Indictment
was found, had been repealed by the
Legislature, after the finding by the
Grand jury and that, therefore, the
indictment was good for nothing. He
argued, long and loudly, to the Court,
that where an indictment was found,
under certain law and when that law
was repealed after the finding, the re-
peal Of the law annulled the indictment
and rendered it nugatory, &c. He
argued this question with his usual tact
and ability. though, l thought. | could
detect, in his looks and manner, that he
doubted the tenability of his own posi-
tion. Judge Reardan, who was then
District Attorney, took an opposite view
of the question and most ably defended
his position. The Court concurred with
him. and. consequently, overruled Judge
Fields motion. From this ruling, upon
this interlocutory motion. Barbour took
an appeal to the Supreme Court.
In course oftime, the appeal was per-
fected, and the papers IN the case were
duly certified up to that august tribunal.
At that time the Supreme Court was COM
posed ms follows Hugh G. Murray,
c. ). 5. HeyGenfeldt, and G IL. Bryan,
of Yuba, is. Joe Beard, clerk.
Previ us to this period, however
Thurstol had appealed his case to the
Supreme court and had succeeded in hav-
ing the Judgment reversed. The Su-
premo court reversed thejudgment of the
court below, because the records showed
that there were twenty-four Grand Ju-
rors present, or, rather impann, He'd, at
the term OF the court at which the in
dictment was found, when, in fact, the: c
ought to have been, and were, only
twenty-three. How the extra name, tc
make the twenty -four. ever got upon
the records. is, was. and ever will, prob
ably, remain mystery.
As said, Thurston's case was re.
versed, and his sentence, Indictment
and everything else set aside. At the
first term of the court. after this reversal
DIR. Winter had him re-indicted, and
when his case on the I'd Indictment was
called up, an interlocutory motion was
made by his counsel, and overruled bv
the court, from which ruling Thurstor
took an appeal to the Supreme Court
not the District Court, as he did in the
first instance. This threw both the
Thurston case and the Barbour case into
the Supreme Court. where both cases
were, at the commencement of the july
term of said court, in the year 1855
Both cases had been taken up upon in
terlocutory motions, and a decision OF
one was. in effect, decision of both
About the commencement ofthe term o1
said court in July. 1856, the Sacrament,
Union published list of cases to be
tried during that term. Among then
were the Tburston and Barbour cases
which were set for hearing at an carly
day in the session. In the course o
time the Court decided the Thurston cast
and remanded it back for trial In do
ing so, they enunciated. from their vati
can, the doctrine that no appeal will Ii,
upon an lnterlocutory motion That tn,
cause must proceed to trial, and if, upol
an appeal after conviction, there be an,
merit in their motion, it would he tim,
enoughfor them, the court, to consider it
| This decision sent back the Thurstol
case. Thurston, however ramoscd tn,
State, went to Nicaragua. joined tn,
Ftllibusters, and died. And here ended
the Sd act in the great drama, entitled
/" The PeOple versnS Rarhou, -