Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-08-21

the sheepcamp and then vent on foot to the ranch
house of More and set the barn ON fire. The burn
ing barn lighted up the whols valley so that it as
seen by men is miles distant trom the scene, and
yet not single one of these Spaniards saw the fire.
R..were they asleap7
QUESTION.
| H.--Well, that is question. Were there ever
forty men in the open air asleep Tor TWO hours
Lawrence Mores bed had been made on that nlgn'
behind pile Of wool bales, SO that his vision was
cut off from the light, and the first that he knew oil
the fire was an hour and half or two hours after
wards. when somebody came over from the ranch'
house and told him My theory that the settlers
In the valley. knowing that these Mexicans were
these, ard that they all had horses ana nearly al u
them firearms, would not have planned and carried
out the murder that night when by waiting lie"
| DAYS the sheep shearers would be through anu OUT
of the way. Again, the testimony OF the eye'wit-
nesses there-one Chinaman and the OF. er a Span
iard-shows that the barn set on fire aud that
More was allowed to get into the barn believed
that II the men intended 90 commit the murder they
would have stood in the shade OF the house anu sho'
him as he came into the light and would never nave
allowed him to get into the barn, where the smoke
and light would be between he and they, ana escape
would be a possibility and the exposure Oh
| their presence certainty. According TO the
| testimony of witness by the name Oh
Ramirez. a Spaniard, who was introduced for the
,-os.cut,op More got inside of the birn, un-
loosened several Of the horses and attempted to
| unloosen one that was close TO the nre, OUT ne
pulled back upon the halter and rendered 1t i'm
possible for him to unite it, This Mexican tes'ned
that More sent him to the house for butcher-knne
to cut the halter and that he went back toward the
house and saw FIVE men with guns in their hands,
and with -four sacks over their heads, and that he
went hack to the barn and went to throw out har-
ness, and never told More anything about seeing
these men. When asked why he did not tell him,
he said he thought they were good men and did
not mean any harm. That is in testimony.
THE HIcKERsoN REVELATION.
R.-Wbat about the testimony Of the man Hck-
erson?
HI will come to that directly There were
also various other circumstances that tended TO
prove that the persons who were there that
went there for the purpose Of committing robbery,
supposing that there would be perhaps large sum
Of money on hand with which to settle with the
sheepshearers who had been at work there for sew
eral weeks and were about done their work, ana
that their object was to get More away from 'he
house and to rob it in his absence.
Rid they in fact rob the housef
H.-That never has been known, and we chal.
lenred the prosecution on every trial to prove that
it had not been robbed because We say the absence
of that proof on their part raised the presumption
81 Vhad defense
was not in condition to prove afrmatiyely that II
had not been robbed, as they had not been IN pos
session of the premises. And there were many other
circumstances too long to detail, and some airma-
tive evidence on the part OF the defendant tending
to estab h the fact that there another party OF
men there that night who might have committed
| the murder More WAS killed. He was a very brave
man, aud my theory is that either Ramirez was an
accompce in the commission OF the robbery or that
he testified falsely, and that he did tell More OF the
| presence OF the men, aud that More went out and
ma lie al attack, and perhaps exposed these pr
sons, and his killing became necessity.
R.-was not the killing accompanied with some
evidences of brutality?
HE was shot three OF four or five times.
R-would not that, to your mind, indicate that
IL was LOT ooAic iV'''S sHN''
merely robbery!
H.-Yes. But the men whom he had discovered
in the act Of committing robbery would have the
same motive to make a sure killing.
R.-was not his body mutilated?
H. No. sir only by the shots.
sPRAGUE.
R.-Why did suspicion fasten on Sprague and his
colleagues
H-Because for years there had been contest
going on in that vicinity over Spanish grant be-
tween More and the settlers
R.-was Sprague leading man among he set.
tiers
HE was leading among the settlers.
He was one Of those men who are always active in
everything that is going on in the neighborhood,
whether it is funeral, schooI.house to be built, or
anything elae.
RS he an intelligent man?
H.-Yes he is above the average OF the settlers
there, aad would be likely to be leading man in a
neghboorhood like that.
R.-Now about the man Hickerson What is
your theory of his testimony against Spraguef
H-Hiekerson was neighbor of Sprague's, and
after Sprague aud these were arrested, Kicker
son was brought in a dying condition to San Buena-
ventura where the examination was then being
held Now, then, on that examination the accused
parties were sprague, Jones, Curlee, Churchill,
Swanson and Cook. Swanson and Cook were dis
charged several days after Hickerson'5 deposition,
having clearly and beyond all question established
an alibi But at the time Hickerson5 deposition
was taken the prosecution claimed that Swanson and
Cook were partners to the crime.
1ruo u-pr rSvnrvrD
Rid Hickerson involve them in his deposit
ton?
HE involved them.
R-They clearly proved an abb!
H-Yes, and were discharged.
R.-And that, you claim, would Of itself. cast dis
credit on this deposition.
H-Yes. and afterwards Hunt and Lord were ar
rested. and that made the party: but Bickerson
never spoke Of Hunt and Lord. against whom the
testimony was as strong as it was against anybody
else.
Rid Rickerson know them?
H-Hickerson knew everybody there. Besides,
Hickerson had been member OF the Grand Jury
which had examined into the commission of this
offensc
Rid Hickerson nculpate himself
h--4tOt Oil
R.-what did his deposition amount to, and in
what way was it dangerous to the defense;
HE claimed that Sprague had confessed to him,
and that those we're the that Spragu, said were
the guilty parties, and 1t happened that they cor
responded exactly with the men who were then on
examination. cross-examination Of Hiekerson
was attempted, but he was under the influence of
opiates. and the magistrate ruled out most every
question. Now year before, in the Ventura Signal,
which was edited by man of marked ability named
Shepherd, who had been at the scene Of the murder
the day after it Was committed, was published an
article which was drawn entirely from
SHEPHERDS IMAGINATION,
In which he described the situation the surround.
ings. the words OF the dying man, and the threats
aud language used by his murderers, and il was
very wildly and well written. Hickerson, in his
deposition, aud as we claimed, with his imagina-
ton excited by opium and his system broken down
by disease, used frequently the very words of this
article and followed it in all is general details, and
so near alike was the deposition and the article,
that after the deposition made public, Shepherd
was sccused of having been party to the murder,
having 30 correctly described it, by several Of the
leading newspapers of the State. on the cross
examination Of Hickerson, counsel for the defense
were so impressed with the belief that It WAS this
newsuaner article that WAS running through his