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


/ The examination of James O'Brien anC
William Anderson, for the murder Of otice
Scott on the night OF Decsmbsr z, 1878, wa
concluded Saturday in Justice Tubs Court
Josiah Fountain testified that he resides OF
the upper Stockton road, six or seven mile!
from the city. He recollected the night thai
| officer Scott was murdered. His dog barkeG
savagely. He got up and went cut to see
what the trouble was saw three or four mer
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 u o'ceck; he was abou.
| fifty steps from the men; they were dressed
| in dark clothes; he could not identify the
| men.
At this point c. T. Jones said that he ex.
pected other witnesses, but they had failed to
| appear, and he would then close the examin.
| alton on the part of the prosecution.
DR.. Deuel. was called By the defense, and
| identified the ball found ia the body.
Charles L. Jones was sworn and examined
| by the counsel for the defense, snd said that
OBrier did not acknowledge the killing to
MIN they all denied any acquaintance with
each other, and also denied being in Stockton
together. When questioned, they refused to
| 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
O'Brien 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, trusty at the station
house, said that Hamilton and Ivey lad been
together on different occasions within the
last two days; previous to Thursday they
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 defendant in the case He
was confined in the city prison. He knew
James Ivey. but did not know how Icing he
had been acquainted with him. Had talked
with Iyey about this matter !; had been in the
cell with him. The witness. as we'll as his
attorney, here objected to his testifying, on
the ground that he might criminate himself.
Alter but little argument the case was then
submitted. Mr.. Ryan. for the defense, said
there was no testimony that would tend to
criminate these defendants, unless it was their
conversation at Stockton. Mr.. Jones replied
that crime had been committed, and the
evidence alteady offered pointed TO these men
as the criminals, and sufficient proof has been
offered to hold tnese men for trial.
In reviewing the case, Justice Tubs said
that IN the examination of case the same
rule OF law does not apply as that which gov
ems In trials. In the one case the Jury must
be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt or no
conviction can be had, but on examination
the magistrate must only be satisfied, first,
that crime has been committed second, be
satisfied that tie defendant committed the
crime. The Elost Of the testimony in this
case. standing aloCe, is of but little valve.
and some OF none whatever yet, taking thu,
testimony Of james Ivty in cour eGtion with
all the testimony, the fact of bis having been
acquainted with these me3, of their havir.,
teen IN prison together, the fact that thew
krew that be was an old convict, and of thei-
applying to him for money In Stockton, wa
only natural. 81 do not agree with counsel
for the defense that i. il necessary To
have as strong testimony to hold the defend.
ants Tor trial as it migh take to convince
jury or that q jury would not convict or,
this testimony. Sometimes it is a very diff
cult matter 20 tell upon what testimony g.
jury viii convict. Nor do agree with coun.
sci for defense that Iyey's testimony should
not be considered ; for il we take for a fsc5
what Ia generally understood TO be true, thai
IL ore of that class of men, as they term IL,
peaches, or blows. lon another, he does
it at the risk Of his life-I may say, tsk5s BIZ
life in his own hands. To me there doss no,
seem to be any reeso- Why ls siluaid testify
to mat which is untrue, ss his term OF i'm.
prison ment expires ia so short a tine hope
CT pardon could not be an irducement: be,
sides. what be says now under oath he said
to Gay "a detective) 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 tina,
they be held to answer for murder. without
baTf