Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-05-01
CLOSE OF THE JANUARY TRIAL.
The Defendant Found GuiIty-The Courts

| WITH e1nDeZZlemenI, was IeSuiucu III ~
partment One of the Superior Court, before
Judge Van Fleet, at "a. NJ. yesterday
District Attorney Buckley presented the
instructions in writing which he desired
should be given to the jury by the Court,
| The counsel for defense inspected them be-
fore they were handed to the Court The
District ATTORNEY made short argument,
and read sections of the Code relative TO
clerks, agents or servants in the matter OF
embezzlement. He then reviewed the tes
timony, saving there was no conflict OF evil
dence. He concluded that 1t was one OF the
clearest cases against an official that had
ever come under his observation.
The defense had no instructions, and
asked the Court to instruct the jury
THE COURTS INSTRUCTIONS. ,
The Court instructed the jury at length !
defining the crime fol which the defendant |
was charged, and giving the usual lnstruc- |
| tons as to the burden OF proof, and the !
province of the jury in passing upon the !
facts, stating that they must find all the !
essential facts as charged IN the Indictment
| beyond a reasonable doubt. The lnStruc- |
| tons were particular as to the law govern |
! ing the charge and Indictment under con- |
| sideration. The Court said that in order to |
convict the defendant the jury must find /!
| that the defendant was at the time charged |
| in the indictment in the employ OF w. n. [
| January i'll the capacity alleged. That !
while so employed and in the course of
such employment, the moneys alleged to |
| have been embezzled came under the con- |!
troll or care of defendant as such employee !
| of w. A. January and that while |
| the money was under his care and |
| Ecac al1ara1 tho Indictment |
that The defendant embezzled it, or |
some portion thereof. That it was
not necessary that the jury should find that |
| he had embezzled all the money so charged, |
| but if they found he had enbezzled any |
portion OF it, it was sufficient, and that they !
| must further find that this money was the |
money of w. a. January, as charged in the |
| Indictment. The Court charged the jury |
that it was not necessary that the owner |
| ship Of the money charged to be |
! in possession Of W. a. January
| should be an absolute or unquali- |
fed ownership, but that it was sufficient to |
sustain the indictment if the jury found |
| that ". A. January had the property in his |
possession or under his CONTROL with a
right TO the possession of it at the |
time it was embezzled They were further
| instructed that the acts of the defendant in
reference to this money in no wise per-
| IalHeU 10 nor III any Way ISliteu 10 HIS Oh
| fetal duties which deyolyed upon him as
| Deputy State Treasurer, and that the jury
were at liberty to determine from all the
| circumstances and facts proven in the case
| the relationship existing between the de-
| PENDANT and W. A. January with reference
to the receipt and safe keeping OF this
| money. That this money was not State
| money, and the receipt and safe keeping of
il was not in the course of the official duty
of the State Treasurer or his Deputy. At
| ter a few other general instructions, the
jury was given written forms for verdict,
and they retired to the jury-roOm in charge |
of Deputy Sheriff.
After an absence of fifteen minutes the |
| jury returned to the Courtroom and rem
dered a verdict of guilty
Mr.. Edgerton asked that the other four
| indictments be dismissed.
| The District Attorney opposed the mo-
! ton. and would not consent to such action |
until he had an opportunity to consult with |
his associate counsel, General Carey
Pending the motion for the dismissal of |
the other cases, the Court declared a recess
until $50 P. NJ.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
At the opening of the Court in the after
noon, the Court said it was disinclined at
this time to grant the motion made by
counsel for defense. Each Indictment con
stitutes a separate and distinct olfense. 1t
is true, perhaps, that the same money is in
VOWED. Owing to the circumstances Of the
case and the position now occupied by the
defendant the Court would not be war
ranted III diSmisSing them. and therefore
the motion IS denied in each case.
Mr.. Edgerton-Then we are ready to
proceed with the trial.
The next case was No. 500 charging the
defendant with grand larceny.
Mr. Edgerton-I desire to have the re-
porter take this statement down: First
The defendant pleads that he has already
been convicted of the offensc charged in
this Indictment, on the 30th day of April, !
1880, in this Court. Second-The defend
ant pleads that he was in jeopardy for the
offense charged in this indictment in the
Superior Court of the city of Sacramento
on the 2Sth, 10Th and 30th days of April,
1885. He Offered also further plea, that
the facts alleged in indictment No. 500, and
the acts therein complained of, are the
same acts i'll substance and effect, as al
| legged in indictment No. 1876. Upon the last
mentioned Indictment the defendant has
already been tried and convicted in this
Court of the crime of embezzlement.
The counsel for prosecution objected to
any special plea or the introduction of any
! evidence which they regarded as irrelevant
and immaterial in the case.
| Mr.. Buckley addressed the Court, saying
that Governor StOneman and Secretary of
! State Thompson were out of the county
! the former at Chico and the latter at Los
| Angeles They were material witnesses in
the case, and he was unwilling to proceed
| with the trial until their presence in Court
| could be secured.
Mr.. Curtis-You have the reporter here
who interviewed the defendant, Chief of
| pgiioo n,,l pffiror A Ri l1
were present at that interview, and their
| testimony IS stronger than either Of the
absent witnesses. We want this trial to
proceed without delay. Those witnesses
| have no right to absent themselves from
| this city while under subpoena to this Court,
and they can be telegraphed for and
| brought here on bench warrant How
ever you can proceed with the witnesses
you have here, and we will consent TO your
reading TO the jury from the shorthand re-
! porters notes the evidence given by the
| Governor and Secretary Of State ON We'd
nesday.
General Carey-I cannot consent to pro-
| coed without having the Governor and Sec
rotary of State in attendance They know
more about this case than any one else.
Judge Mckune insisted on proceeding
with The trial. Every particle Of evidence
was in in ii written form. lie held that it
NbhIti ibt nc llSili ~ NtIlIkl INT utltIli-
ant, who Will be taken to some State Prison,
to come back here and be prosecuted on
other indictments. The absent witnesses
could be compelled by process Of law TO
return. and he desired the Court to compel
| their attendance if counsel for the prosecu-
ton would not consent TO the proposition to
read their testimony in the preceding case.
1t looked 10 him as though counsel for
prosecution were anxious to get the other
indictments set as far in the future as posi-
bic, so rs to see whether this judgment will
stand in the higher Courts, and if not, to
secure other indictments against him. He
thought it oppressive to convict the defend
ant of an offense, and then prosecute him
again for the same offenSe.
The Court said that this was the first
time a continuance had been asked by the
prosecution in this case The Governor
and Secretary of State had on Wednesday,
when leaving the stand, notified the Court
and counsel that they were going out of the
city and they went away innocentiy. The
defense had asked for three continuances
in the case, which have been granted-two
of which were consented to by the present
Court, and one by his predecessor. He