Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-10-04
LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.
TULLIs MURDER.
Trial of A. F. Clark as an Accessory-A
Verdict of Acquittal

Tr1al OF A. Z. ClaIk DIS al ACCSSSOiy -A
Verdict of Acquittal
The case of the People VS.. A. +. Clark,
charged with being accessory to the murder
of A. NJ. Tullis in 1873, which was COM
merced in the Superior Court before Judge
benson on Friday, was concluded Saturday
evening. The case, as presented by the tes-
timony, was briefly as follows: A. +. Clark
was at the time partner in business on X,
between Eighth and Ninth streets in what
was known as the Sierra Nevada Saloon.
When Troy Dye was arrested for the murder
of Tullis, Clark was also arrested, but was
subsequently released He was again ar
rested, and in January, 1879, was tried, but
there was not sufficient evidence to warrant
his conviction, and at the suggestion of the
prosecuting attorneys verdict of acQuittal
was rendered Several months afterward
Clark was rearreSted and indicted by the
Grand Jury as accessory to the murder of
Tullis in that he had knowledge of the crime
and had not informed the authorities and
also that he had assisted Anderson to escape.
The trial for this last offense is the one just
concluded. As testimony on the part of the
prosecution, the judgment roll in the case of
the People Vs. Edward Anderson was first
introduced
Mrs Edward Anderson was then put upon
the stand and testified to the visit Of Clark to
their house shortly after the murder, at which
time Anderson left his blankets and stated
that he was going to work on the thrashing
machine up country.
f. G. Browning, hotelkeeper at Pleas
ant Grove, in Suffer county, testified that
early on the morning of August 4th, the third
day after the murder of Tullis, Clark and
Anderson came to his place in a buggy; that
Anderson introduced Clark to him, and stated
who he was and what his business was that
they drove on, stating that Clark was taking
Anderson to a point near Nicolaus, where
he was working with a thrashing machine !;
that afterwards, on the same day, Clark re-
turned alone and stopped at the house, ate
dinner and slept till about sundown, when he
drove on, stating that he was going to Sac
ramento.
NJ. NJ. Drew, ex-Sherif, G. T. Jones and
ex Deputy Sheriff I. Lee, testified that on
September l, 1878, they had meeting with
Dye, Anderson and Clark in the Sheriff's
office, they then being prisoners; that the
defendants were asked if they had any state
ments to make. Dye and Anderson had
some two weeks previously made full con-
fessions They were informed that if either
one stated matters in the presence of the
and if the party implicated remained silent
and offered no explanation, that under the
law his silence could be construed as a cir
cumstance against him that on that occa-
sion Anderson said in the presence and
hearing of Clark that several days be.
fore the murder of Tullis he had
expressed to Dye fear of Tom Lawton-in
fact that he was afraid to commit the crime
with Lawton; that Dye said, 'Well, if you
1 - -. I
with you ;" that Anderson asked Clark if he
would go with him and do that job. and
Clark gave reply, "Well, l will go and kill
the old s. of a b, too quick :" that
Dye told Anderson that Clark would assist
him off that on the 81 of August. 1873, he
desired to leave town and sent his wife to see
Clark and ask him to come up to his house
that Clark came up and arrangement was
made for him to take Anderson out of town
early the next morning that before daylight
on the following morning he come with his
buggy and took Anderson to near Nicolaus !;
that on tie way up Anderson detailed TO hun
particularly the circumstances OF the
murder OF Tullis that arrangements
were made then that Clark Dye
should keep Anderson informed by
letter as to the state of things at Sacra-
mento that the letters were to be signed
with the name of Parker that one under
EcOre or StrOhe uutcr tine MAINS SnOuiu lntl-
cate danger; two strokes, extreme danger
and three strokes, the witness expressed
it, "mesnt to get up and git" That he
(Anderson) received q letter signed Parker,
with two undsrscores, and in his agitation
dropped it and put the envelope in his pocket /;
that he believed the letter was in Clark's
handwriting that the letter was found, and
at the time of the interview, was in the hands
OF the officers Of the law that the letter was
then identified by Anderson aud shown to
Clark, who was asked if he had any explana-
ton to make about the letter; that he re-
piled, "a suppose Dye has told you all about
that letter :" and.beyond that he made no
statement whatever during the interview.
This letter was exhibited on the trial, and
with another letter, admitted by the defense
TO have been written by Clark after his ar
rest was introduced il evidence, and Frank
Miller, cashier of the \ ational Gold Bank,
testified as an expert that he believed both
were written by the same person.
The prosecuti II took the ground that
Clark, not having denied this statement of
Anderson when IL would have been the
natural impulse OF innocent person to
solemnly deny 1t, he thereby clearly raised
the legal presumption that he was guilty as
stated
On the part of the defense several per ons
were introduced who testified that they had
known the defendant from childhood and to
his general good conduct. One of them,
David Roderick, of San Francisco, who had
been his schoolmate, and corresponded with
him and was familiar with his handwriting,
testified that the - Parker letter was not
in Clark's handwriting. The defense also
proved by J. n. Young and G. l.. White
that before the LIST OF September, 1873, they
adaivised Clark not to make any statements
whatever to anyone except his counsel, aud
upon this fact the defense relied to refute
any inference of guilt which might otherwise
obtain by mis- silence upon the occasion of the
interview referred to.
The above is in short and effect the testi-
mouy adduced in the case. The prosecution
was represented by District Attorney Buck
ley. George A. Blanchard and c. T. Jones ;
the defense by Creed Raymond and c. l..
White. Upon conclusion of the argument
and instructions OF the Court the jury re-
tired, and after an absence Of about twenty
minutes returned with verdict of acquittal,