Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1875-11-19
ATTEMPT 70 MUzzLE III PRESS.

OF the two trials OF Charles Watts, tnat
lately occurred in the Justices Court,
are somewhat amusing, and no doubt
caused some sport, but, nevertheless,
q jury, after being sworn to try = case
and after hearing all the testimony ia
the case, are supposed by ~ people
to know as much about 1t as an editor
who was not present, and who gained
his information from street rumors.
Furthermore, the item in the SENTI-
MEL concerning the barley larceny
case was unfair, unsupported by any
of the testimony in the case, and had
more or less influence on the recent
trial. As a general proposition. h
men who sit on jnries rave as much
interest in the administration of justice
as those who Comment on the accuracy
of their verdicts, and there is. in the
writer's opinion, no good reason for u
person ignorant Of the proof in any
particular case, to indirectly intimate
that twelve men are guilty Of perjury,
or if not that, the twelve have less
sense than himself. Yours truly,
DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY.
"Defendant's Attorney" having
chosen to appeal his case to the read
ers of the SENTINEL instead of the Dis
trict Court, we accord him space in our
columns for the publication of his
brief. We do this more ch%eerfully,
because in accommodating him we
crafty our own vanity in advertising
our success as a p~aragraphist and the
wholesome influence exercised by the
SENTINEL in the correction of public
abuses, and the reformation of a popu-
lar error. To be assured by a member
of one of the learned professions that
that what was intended merely as An
ordinary Police Court item was samus-
ing" and "caused much SPORT" is a
of a reporter might we'll feel proud;
but to be informed that a few -four
ishes of our Faber were instrumental
in awakening twelve sensible men and
excellent citizens to a sense OF their
duty. is panegyrical to a degree of in
rensity almost too powerful for our in
herent modesty, which stands appalled,
ct the grandeur Of our success as de
scribed and illustrated by our legal
contemporary. Unfortunately, how
over, our conscience is sensitive to an
extent proportionate to our modesty,
and the powerful influence of these
combined elements impel US to state
the facts, even although it be at the
expense of our vanity. In our
item relative to the barley larceny
trial We stated that the
defendant had, prior to the trial, made
u proposition to the Justice to plead
guilty, upon condition that he (the
Justice) would agree to certain terms
relative to the sentence. The proposed
terms were not entertained by the
Court, and the defendant plead not
guilty, and was tried by a jury and
acquitted. The facts above stated in
regard to the defendants proposition
were in evidence, and we remarked
that the jury must have believed thai
the defendant lied when he acknowl-
edged the larceny to the Judge. OF
course, our inference of the acknowl-
edgment of his guilt was based upon
his willingness to plead guilty to the
crime upon condition Of his receiving
a certain sentence. We merely men
toned the fact as a curious legal coin
plication, with NJ disparageMent to
The jury, upon which were some of as
fair. minded and sensible men as "a
be found in the community. Our in
formation concerning the evidence was
not obtained from 'street ruinor," but
from the Judge aud attorneys in the
case, Of which latter the writer Of the
above communication was one. Thi.
case is by no means an isolated one.
This same thing has occurred in the
Police Court so frequently before that
it had got to be a standing joke among
the officers and attorneys, and we will
venture the assertion that "Defendant'>
Attorney" has beard it remarked n
hundred times, and has probably often
made the remark himself that all that
vas necessary to secure an ~acquittal in
the JUS. ice Court was for the defendan,
to plead guilty to the Judge, with
draw the plea and call for
. jury, which was sure to &C
acquit him. 1t IL, moreover, = we'll
known fact that for the last year con
~vistions by jury in the Police Court
have been Of SO unfrequent occurrence
that n call for q venire has been gener-
ally regarded ss equivalent to an ac-
quittal. Numerous offenders, whoss
petty crimes have been proven beyond
the possibility OF a doubt, have escaped
punishment through some frivolous
notion Of perhaps n or two jurymen
who would hold out and prevent q
verdict, which generally amounts to