The Placer herald., 1861-05-11

I
them. On the day said cause was set, alilant
wrote to w. ii. Farrar. of Portland. Oregon,
counsel for the prosecution, and also at the same
time sent il teeeraphic message informing him
of the trial of said cause, and nstiuctlng that
said messa re be Immediately forwarded, which be
is informed was done. Aflant also wrote letters
TO Ii. S. Brown. District Attorney of San Fran
/ CISCO and J. V. Watson, Of San Francisco, re-
qucstng them to confer Immediately with the
counsel and relatives of deceased, and inform
them of the time for the trial of said cause,
which he is informed and believes has been done.
After the exercise of e,ery diligence. said wit
nesses and said counsel and said relatives of de-
ceased are rot in attendance, and no Information
has been received from them, because OF the
shortness of time. and the distance between this
place and the place of their residence. On &C
count OF the fact that said subpenas from San
Francisco county, served on said Lahtrty has not
as yet been returned. that affant could not
base his application for an attachment on said
witness ufilnt makes this affidavit; first for the
purpose of basingu motion for an attachment
against said witness. james Laherty, to secure
his attendance; and having shown due diligence,
and the absence of the counsel and said Newell s
relatives to base an application for continuance
of said cause for the present term of this Court,
not for delay. but that justice muy be done
Sworn to and subscribed May 6, a. d.. 1861.
J. HAMILTON, Dist Atty.
HENRY GooDlNG. County Clerk.
Mr.. Hamilton said the witnesses. W. H. and
Charles Newell were important witnesses. but
from the very short time he had been connected
with the case. he was not aware Cf what facts
they would testify to.
Judge Myers asked if he was credibly informed
that their testimony would be material?
Mr. Hamilton replied that he understood the
materiality Of their testimony would depend
entirely upon the conduct of the case. Under
certain circumstances he would not deem it ma
teriul. Bat he could not speak positively, not
being vet wholly conversant with the case He
had ssnc,l subpenas for them and sent them to
San Francisco, as the point most likely to III
terctpt them.
Mr. Mills said there WAS another affidavit in
connection with the one just read.
Mr. Robinson suggested that it would be as
well to dispose of the application before the
Court before making another. He understood
that the District Attorney had made all the show
ing he intended to make, and he wished to ud-
dress himself to that at that time.
Judge Myers said he would hear the affid.vts
entire before hearing the argument upon the mo-
ton.
Mr.. Robinson said he understood this was an
application coming from some one else and it
placed the defense in novel attitude. They
were here to meet the prosecution Of the State 10y
its constituted authorities. and all the aid and
co operation he was legally entitled to. but not to
meet the prosecution OF any other party. This
District Attorney must make his own showing
and give his official responsibility for every act
of the prosecution.
Judge Myer said he thought this was with the
concurrence of the District Attorney.
Mr.. Hamilton assented renarking that his
connection with the case was much more recent
than that Of Mr. Mills.
Mr. Robinson said if this second affidavit was
the doing of the District Attorney, he could not
object.
The District Attorney said it was moi his doing:
he had made affidavit only as to facts within his
own knowledge. hut this affidavit alleged facts
within the know ledge of parties.
The Court directed Mr. Mills to read the affla-
Wit. and Mr.. Robinson took an exception.
Mr.. Mills then read the
AFFIDvvIr OF W. W. STEWART.
The People VS.. Horace SnHh- In the District
Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, Placer
county, Gallon this 9th day of May. A. d.
1851. personally appeared before ne, The under
signed County Clerk in and for said county. W.
W. Stewart who. upon bciHg by me first duly
sworn deposcs and says: That he isa cousin to
Samuel T. Newell the person alleged by the in
dctment in said above entitled case to have
been killed by the above named defendant and
also that he is sacquaintcd with the brother Of de-
ccased that said brother resides in Oregon and
is the editor OF Il newspaper IN that State. That
since the death Of deceased aforesaid. said Newell
(brother to dcceascd) has been in the State OF
California. and has acquainted himself with all
Of the circumstances attending the death Of said
deceased - that said brother is in possession Of
certain important documents. documents which
have a material relation TO said case, and which
it is important should be introduced in evidence
in said trial. Also that said Newell (brothcrj
upon hearing Of the death of deceased left his
business i'm Oregon and came to California. and
before the case came to trial was compelled 10
return to Oregon to attend to his said paper:
that he. at the time of leaving for Oregon, or
shortly before. expressed firm intention to be
present at the trial of said case: and aiiant has
no doubt of his intention to be present at the trial
Afiant further says that he is advised by counsel
for the prosecution not to name the character Of
said documents at this time, unless said Court
should deem necessary that he do so. Afflnt
further AYERS that the son Of said Newell (wtncss)
is also at Oregon. and that he is also an import
ant witness and that he knows all of the facts
concerning the relationship of defendant with
deceased for 4 long time previous to the homicide:
and that said son knows that the defendant had a
long existing grudgc against deceased. Atfant
further says that there is also witness in the Vi
cnty of San Francisco named John Laharty.
who the commencement of the occurrence
resulting in the death OF deceased. and saw the
defendant pursuing the deceased deceased not
knowing the iAcD directly before the fatal blow
Was struck. Affant further AYERS that Newell Of
Oregon has employed an attorney at Oregun to
prosecute said case, and Uifant knows that said
attorney intends being present at the trial of
said case; that both Newell ard said attorney are
entirely familiar with thc whole history of the
facts OF said case. much more than any other
persons. and that their attendance is ndspcnst-
bic to the ends of justice. Aifant refers to the
affidavit on file OF Mr.. Hamilton, District Attor-
ney with reference to the dili9 9ence used TO OBJ
tain the Attendance Of said parties. Afiant fur
thcr says that he expects and has no doubt of the
fact. that they all would be present if time snhi-
cient would be given by the Court. and that there
are no other witnesses who know the facts which
the prosecution will be able to establish by those
witnesses. Afiitnt further says that their attend
ance cam be procured at the next term of said
Court. to which time he prays for continuance of