Lyon County times. [volume] (Silver City, Nev.) 1874-1907, 1875-11-09
JUDGE. J. PORTER GOULD
His Unwarranted Action In the
Kennedy.GildO Case.
Trying q Prisoner Alone at Mid.
night without Witnesses.
A Light Penalty for a Heavy
Offence.

1
tice J. Porter Gould, the Justice of
the Peace of this township, that we
call the attention of his bondsmen
and the citizens of this city 10 what
we believe to have been his illegal
and, certainly, unheard of proceed
ings of last Saturday night, in the
case of the State of Nevada against
one John Kennedy. The case is
this On lat Saturday evening
Kennedy committed an unprovoked
and murderous assault upon Mr.
Gildo while that gentleman was
quietly riding up street in his milk
wagon. Kennedy, pretty drunk at
the time, picked up heavy rock
from the street and throwing it,
struck Gildo in the back of the
head, inficting a fearful cash and
bruise, knocking him nearly sense
less, and causing the blood to
spatter like dash of rain over his
clothes and those of man who was
riding with him at the time. Ken
nedy was promptly arrested by
deputy Constable Noble on charge
of assault and battery on the COM
plant of Gildo, and brought before
Justice Gould. From this point we
shall let the Justice tell his own
story of the part he has played in
the affair. In an interview with
our reporter on Sunday evening, he
substantially said: Kennedy was
brought before me for immediate
trial and demanded a jury. Gildo,
the complaining witness then made
his statement"
REPORTER Was this statement
under oath
Gould-"No Sir, and as was go
ing to say, I saw that Kennedy was
too d-n drunk to understand the
proceedings. I made out commit
ment and ordered Deputy Constable
Noble to place him in Jail, and ad
journed further hearing of the case
until Sunday morning at ten o'clock.
At about half-past ~ O'Clock that
night some friends of the prisoner
were shown to my residence by
Noble, and requested me to get up,
come over 10 the Court Room, and
hear the case Immediately, telling
me that Kennedy demanded trial,
would plead guilty, and that they
This friends) would pay his fine. l
got up, went to the Court.room, or
dered Noble to bring the prisoner
before me, and when he arrived he
walked up TO the bar and enter ed a
plea of guilty, whereupon fined him
sirteen dollars, the costs of the pros
ecution up to that time, and the
prisoner and his friends departed.
Reporter-Who were present at
the time.
Gould-The prisoner, his friends
and Deputy Noble.
Reporter-Did the deputy return
the commitment, on bringing the
prisoner before you?
Gould-NO sir; he had given it to
Constable Miller, who had gone to
bed, and that was not necessary any
way.
Reporter-Did yon or the Deputy
give notice to the District Attorney,
or the complaining witness, or Con-
stable Miller or to any one else that
the case had been called up ten
hours before the time to which it
had bean adjourned: or did you take
any evidence in the case before as
sessiny the fine?
Gouid-No sir; none of that was
necessary. l had a legal right to
try that man just when, aud how
was mind to. did it, and were a
similar case to spring up would do
exactly the same thing under similar
circumstances.
Reporter - After knowing what
you did about the unprovoked as
sault, hearing Gildo's statement, see
ing his gashed head, and knowing,
also, that the ridiculous complaint
of simply assault and battery"
which had been hurriediy and
thoughtlessly made out, would have
the next morning been amended to
one of assault with intent to do
great bodily injury" did you think
fine of sixteen dollars sufficient
punishment for the prisoner?
Gould-Yes, sir; I'LL was will
ing to let him of at that owing to his
being drunk and having family.
eporter-Then you think that
your entire action in the matter was
legal and equitable, do you?
Gould--Yes, sir; and l defy any
lawyer to say that it was not. Judge
Seawell will sustain me, without a
doubt.
Reporter-I shall publish this
statement: do you wish to amend it
in any manner?
Gould-No, sir; it is the truth"
This ended the interview. Now
while, perhaps from our insufficient
knowledge of the law regulating the
duties of justices of the peace, we
entirely disagree with Justice
Gould as to the legality of his pro-
ceedings in the case, We may still
be wrong. We certainly cannot
find anything between the covers
of the . compiled laws of Nevada"
directly beaIng upon this partic-
ular case. and shall therefore moi
at this time take issue on the
LEGALITY of the point in question
There is, however, common sense
view OF the matter which should
| oo.&a.,lx, hovo nnt1a1 InctIae