Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-03-21
LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.
THE LANDgs CASE.

Court since the llth instant, was concluded
on Saturday. The entire day of Saturday
was occupied up to o'clock P. NJ. in hearing
the argument of counsel and in giving the
charge of the Court to the jury. The jury
retired, and at o'clock returned into Court
with q verdict Of guilty. This morning was
set as the time to pass sentence upon defend
ant. The Court directed the Sheriff to take
the defendant into custody. An order was
entered that the bail of defendant be fixed at
s.. 500 pending appeal, but up TO the present
time bail has not been given. 1t is, how
ever, understood that the defendant has Sc
cured bail, and will give it this morning
as soon as he receives his sentence
It has been stated that this case is the first
for bigamy in this State, but this is incorrect,
as on inquiry it Is found that it is not the
first time an arrest has been made for that
crime in California but it is, SO far as can be
ascertained, the first successful prosecution
for this offenss, and this belief is sustained
by the fact that there are no cases of bigamy
reported In the decisions of the Supreme
Court of this State. Judging from the time
it took to take tbs testimony in this case, it
must have taken great deal of labor to get
the facts together and find the witnesses by
which the features of the case could be
proven, and the gentlemen who conducted
the work. During the entire eight days that
the trial was progressing the Courtroom
was continuously crowded with spectators
while the Court was in session. Much inter
est was felt in the case by those who could not
attend the trial, and since the verdict was
rendered the expression OF public opinion has
been that it is just In view of the convic-
ton, and that lawyers look upon the case as
a leading one and likely to go into "the
books, a brief resume of the leading facts
brought out may be Of interest to the public.
August 5, 1880, defendant was married at
the Golden Eagle Hotel in this city by Rev.
J. Z. Wickes to Miss Emma Hack, re-
spectacle and wsll-connected resident of Sac
ramento county near EreepOrt, and on the
same day left for Woodland to teach school
in Willow Slough district in Yolo county.
Subsequently news was received here that
two women from this city had visited the
school-hoase where defendant was employed,
and that one of them had shot at Landes, but
had failed to hit the mark, and that defend
ant had escaped uniDjured. 1t subsequently
developed that the woman who didthe shooting
was a widow lady of responsibility and of
good family, Mrs. Julia A. Finn, who has
resided ia this city from her childhood. She
claimed that the defendant was her lawful
husband that she had heard of the mar
riage Of defendant with Miss Hack, and had
written to him for an explanation. That he
denied he was married to any one but herself.
She subsequently, heard that he and Miss
Hack were living together as man and wife
in Yolo county, and went out to see if it was
true. She called at the school-house, accom-
panied by her sister, Jennie Cowen, and had
talk with Landes, which ended in the shoot
ing. She was subsequently arrested upon
charge Of assault to murder, and an Informa-
ton was fled in the Superior Court of Yolo
county, since which time the case has rested.
Subsequent to her own arrest, she, by advise
of her own counsel, d. E. Alexander and G.
l.. White, caused the arrest of defendant on
charge OF bigamy, and when the case came
up before the magistrate for examination,
the defendant interposed the objection that
the complainant could not swear to a COM
plant against him, because she claimed to be
his wife, and a wife cannot testify against
her husband without his consent. Her attor-
neys not deeming the matter important, con-
sented to q dismissal of the charge on that
ground. Immediately they drew a new COM
plant and caused it to be sworn to by full
sister of Mrs. Finn, Miss Alice Townsend.
The case was examined before Superior
Judge s. @. benson, sitting as magistrate.
The prosecution first proved the marriage
with Miss Emma Hack, and then offered to
prove the former marriage by the other lady,
who claimed that defendant had been mar
ried to herself. The defendant objected to
and must for that purpose be con-
sidered, his wife, and under the law
ef this State in that case she could
not testify without his consent. The
law on that subject was thoroughly argued
and Judge benson held that he could not
exclude her from the witness stand, until it
appeared absolutely that she was the wife of
the defendant. AS it had already been
proven that defendant had one wife, of course
uhan he ba1 ola h
ing was left for the magistrate to do but to
hold him to answer before the Superior
Court, which he did. An information was
filed, and on the 11th instant the trial COM
menced before Superior Judge Clark and
jury. Mrs. Finn, or Landes, on the trial
claimed that some time in the latter part OF
1879 the defendant took her, late one even
ing, to place he said was Brighton and had
a marriage ceremony performed before
some one whom she supposed to be a
Justice of the Peace; that there were
present q lady and two men, besides
the supposed Justice and the defendant and
herself. The date OF this transaction she
does not fix accurately, but the counsel for
the prosecution claimed that the evidence in
the case fixes it as October ., 1879. She
claimed further that defendant wanted this
marriage kept a secret, and gave as a reason
therefor, that his people did not wish him to
marry her, and that they would not help him,
if they knew it. 1t was accordingly by her
kept secret, but it was sworn to that they
cohabited together as man and wife. About
May, 1880, she states that she desired him to
publish the usual marriage notice, but he ex-
cused himself to her, and gave her marriage
certificate, which satisfied her. until he mar
ried Emma Hack While at Willow slough,
and after he was married to the latter lady,
he wrote the first wife five letters, which were
chiefly instrumental in securing his convic-
ton, as they corroborated the other testi-
mony Co such an extent that the jury did not
believe the defendants story about the affair.
Concerning the genuineness of the letters
there was much 'expert" testimony. A
child was born to Mrs. Finn-L andes, and
physician testified that he attended the lady
at her confinement at request of defendant,
who told him the lady was his wife. Other
witnesses testified to defendants acknowl-
edeing Mrs. Finn as his wife, and that he
visited her and occupied her room.
For the defense fat denial was made
OF these facts, and witnesses testified
to facts tending to establish an abb as against
the alleged visits etc. Defendant took the
stand aud testified that the letters, save two,
were not in his handwriting, and were not
written by him or at his request-the two
exceptions snte-dated the marriage. The
prosecution was conducted by ID. Z.
Alexander, Clinton L. White and District
Attorney Henry l.. Buckley, and the defend
ants counsel were Messrs. Charles I. Jones
and Ed. NJ Martin. The case will probably
90 to the Supreme Court on the question as
to whether Mrs. Finn was properly permitted
to testify.