Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-09-25
TIE SCOTT MURDER CASE.

The examination Of James O'Br;en and
William Anderson, for the murder Of officer
Scott on the Light Of December z, 1878, was
concluded Saturday in Justice Tubs Court.
Josiah Fountain testified that be resides on
the upper Stockton road, six or seven miles
from the city. He recollected the night that
officer Scott was murdered. His dog barked
sayagely. He got up and went cut to see
what the trouble was saw three or four men
pass by; they were on the Stockton road,
going in that direction. They fred two gun
shots. He called the dog back into the
house. 1t was after II o'clock; he was about
fifty steps from the men; they were dressed
in dark clothes; he could not identify the
men.
At this point G. T. Jones said that he ex-
pected other witnesses, but they had failed to
appear, and be would then close the cxamin-
alton on the part Of the prosecution.
DR.. Deuel. was called By the defense, and
identified the ball found 10 the body.
Charles L. Jones was sworn and examined
by the counsel for the defense, and said that
OBrier did not acknowledge the killing to
MIN; they all denied any acquaintance with
each other, and also denied being In Stockton
JtSclucEs w utH tneJ EclusSu
say where they were on the night of the muir
der. Neither of the defendants denied the
fact that they were in Sacramento on that
night. Anderson said he was arrested with
OBrisn they each said positively that they
were not in Stockton together; one of them
said he was not in Stockton for six years.
Thomas Bailey, a trusty at the station
house, said that Hamilton and Ivey had been
together on different occasions within the
last A.rTl u
were not together. The defendants have
not been allowed the use of the corridors of
the prison.
Thomas Hamilton, whose confession was
published few days ago in full in the
RECORD UNION, was next sworn. He said
he knew he was a defendant in the case. He
was confined in the city prison. He knew
James Ivey, but did not know how long he
had been acquainted with him. Had talked
with lvey about this matter had been in the
cell with him. The witness. rs we'll as his
attorney, here objected to his testifying, on
the ground that he might criminate himself
After but little argument the case was then
submitted. Mr.. Ryan. for the defense, said
there was no testimony that would tend to
criminste these defendants, unless it was their
conversation at Stockton. MIR. Jones replied
that crime had been committed, and the
evidence alveady offered pointed TO these men
as the criminals, and sufficient proof has been
offered to hold tbese men for trial.
In reviewing the case, Justice TUBES said
that in the examination of a clsa the same
rule Of law does not apply as that which gov
ems In trials. In the one case the jury must
he satisfied beyond e lsonable doubt or no
conviction can be had, but on examination
the magistrate must only be satisfied, first,
that a crime has been committed second. be
satisfied that Il defendant committed the
crime. The most Of the testimony in this
case, standing alone, is of but little value,
and some OF none whatever yet, taking the
testimony of James Ivey in cour ection will,
all the testimony, the fact of his having been
acquainted with these men, of their hayirf,
Teen in prison together, the fact that thew
knew that be was an old convict and of thei-
applying to him for money In Stockton, wal
only natural. 81 do not agree with counsel
for the defense that il is necessary tn
have as strong testimony to hold the defend.
ants for trial as it might take 20 convince
jury; or that jury would not convict OF.
this testimony. Sometimes it is a very diff
cult matter TO tell upon what testimony a.
jury viii convict. Nor do l agree with coun
sci for deiense that Ivey's testimony should
not be considered for il we take for a fact
what is generally understood TO be true, that.
II one of that class of men, as they term it,
peaches,' or blows, Eon another, he doef;
it at the risk Of his life-I may say, takes hi.r
life in his own hands. To me there does not
seem to be any reason Why IL ai.udld testify
to that which is untrue, his term of i'm.
prisonment expires IN so short tine a hope
Of pardon could not be an irducement; be.
sides. what be says now under oath he said
to Gay IA detectivel only short time after
its occurrence. From the testimony ] am
satisfied that the crime was committed as
charged in the complaint, and that the de.
PENDANTS are guilty. l therefore order that
they be held to answer for murder. without
haiT