Weekly Arizona citizen., 1880-12-04
THE SANFORD CASE.
d Card from Judge Haynes, Attorney
 for lIr. sanford.
TUcsov. December 4.

injustice to 5Ir. Sanford That you
 are not ihe writer of the article in
 question I am we'll satisfied. The " ear marks and ' brands are en-
 urely too distinct 10 leave 8 doubt as to the identity and ownership of the
 writer
 1 never have and do not now pro- pose to try any of my cases in the newspapers. but the pretended recital
 of testimony and fact in the article referred to are so grossly distorted and exaggerated that ] would be wanting in every sense of right and justice if I did not reply to this most remarkable effort 10 prejudice his case and black en hrs reputation. Permit me to cal your attention to a few of the mis- statements of facts, evid ence and con ] clusions.
 quote: Sanford moreover mani : tested an unusual oGiciousness by assist ing 10 drive the cattle several miles on the road to Tucson, the reason for which was not so apparent at the time as it subsequently, became. One of the cattle, @ cow three years old, pecu- liarly marked by nature and we'll known to Sanford and his vaqueros, made her escape and returned to the ranch. Sanford mquJestsd 1suc6 ia- DatiHcs until she was secured and ol her way 10 market" lThe italics are mine)
 As Co the first part of this statement, there was no testimony Of anything unusual in the conduct of Sanford in helping to drive the cattle; no proof that he and other sellers of cattle did not always do SO, and that he and all others should do SO under all circum- stances IS most natural, and no fair minded man, whether interested or not would seek to draw from it any inference unfavorable 60 Mr. Sanford. l But the nimus of the writer is more apparent from the latter part of the quotation given above, for there was not one word of testimony ip the case 1 as Co Sauford's conduct or actions l when the COW returned, nor even that ! he was at home at that time, or knew | Of her return. T5e public must judge ! of the strength of the case made by ! the prosecutor, and the results of the ! Col0uels most wonderful cross-exam- ination when, to convince them of Mr. | Smfords guilt such statements are made-a statement which not only has no foundation in the testimony, put which in fact is not true.
 The writer also asserts that there had been a controversy oveI this an imal when calf, and that It was finally recognized by the parties as the property of Vail 6 Harvey. That the calf referred Co, and the contro- versy over it, was in no way connected with the case was clearly proven. The controversy referred to occurred De cember LS, 1878. The witness for the prosecution who testified in regard 10 it further testified that the calf at that time was three or four months cid; SO that, if that was the animal in ques ton, iJ could not have been at the time of the sale by Sanford, in July last, more than two years old, whereas the witness for the prosecution who bought the COW and butcheFed her. as well as Inc writer of this remarka ble article, both say she was then h0ee years old, while several of the wit ncsses testified she was four years old. l
 The attempted Ident idcauon of his COW by the prosecution was shown to be complete failure by their own testimony. We shall not stop to dis cuss whether the brand found on the hide after the hair was removed was the brand of Vail & Harvey or not. lTr. Harvey admitted under oath that in two cases they. had branded calves belonging to NIr. Sanford by mistake If that mistake was made in two in stances it is altogether possible that it occurred in others land hereafter we wlll show. if it becomes necessary, that such mistakes did occur in other iusiaucesI. aud if so. the finding of their brand would be very far from conclusive proof that they owned the animal SO branded. Whatever con troyersy there may be as to whether the brand is that of Vail & Harvey, it was distinctly proved in the case that of the seven or eight men present when this COW was sold and vented, no. one discovered any mark or brand but that of Mr. Sanford, and if that be true. no larceny was committed, no , matter who owned the COW.
 But the proof was conclusive and satisfactory that the COW was the property of lIr. Sanford Not one witness attempted 10 contradict the fact that she had MT. Sanford's ear mark-and if so, she could not have been the property of Vail & Harvey; for while Sauford's mark could be , readily changed to theirs, It would be , an utter impossibility to change -heir { mark to NIT. Sanlords. Ihave no hesitation in saying that no ease has been made against Mir. Sanford-not a fact or circumstance brought out by the prosecution that { cannot be readily and satisfactorily
 H-s