Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-01-03
ARGUED AND SUBMITTED.
The Evinger Case to be Decided in Court
To-Vlay

| The case of the People VS.. IaYallatlgl
, - p,,,ao, ,,,,ioh bos haon occ,,nvin, tn
anu ~ po,:oo
attention of Judge Henry IN the Ponce
| Court for some weeks past, was called again
at II. NJ Yesterday.
C:. 49,. ,,,dar.,,,. sold t;,a a,,;da,,ca
| Otty A''oilie'
was ali IN, and' SO ial iS tle prosecution
| was concerned, they would submit the case
| without argument.
| C. T. Jones. of counsel for defense, said
| he did not wish to make an extended argu-
| ment, still he would object to It's being sub
| mitted in that manner. He wanted to
! know upon what charge, if any, they de-
! sired the defendants held.
| The CITY Attorney replied that upon what
| charge they should be held was entirely dis
cretionary with the Court The case had
been carefully tried and he was of the
| opinion that they could be held for viola
! ton of Section 266, seduction Section 20,
rape Section 1876. dissuading q witness; or
| Section 1S2. relative TO conspiracy He
! said he was willing to abide the common
| law rule. submit the case and let the Court
! aoply the law.
Mr.. Jones said the case was fully argued
a few DAYS ago on a motion 10 dismiss, and
! therefore he was willing to submit 1t with
! out further argument
! Mr. johnson said he would claim, mas
! much as the prosecution had the closing,
| the right to reply.
; Mr.. Jones objected He said the prose
! cution had not opened the case. 1t would
be unfair to compel them to open the argU-
I ment and then give the prosecution the
| closing of the case. He asked the Court to
| compel the prosecution to open the argu-
ment.
The Court said he could not do so.
. Counsel for the prosecution had opened the
case, inasmuch as they claimed that GER
tain laws had been violated.
Mr. Johnson asked Mr.. Jones to proceed.
He remarked The City Attorney opened
the case and if you are through | will pro-
coed to make the closing argument
This caused Mr. Jones to proceed to argue
| the case. which he did at length, reviewing
all of the testimony and claiming that
it had not been proven that his clients had
violated any Of the many sections of the
statute read by the City Attorney He
held that all the witnesses, particularly
Shubert had told the truth, while the pros
ecuting witness Ida Evinger) testimony
was to be discredited. He claimed she
was not silly country girl one easily i'm
posed upon, but a woman. unusually
bright. who had fascinating and winning
WAYS, which she never failed to bring into
IttlUlSlJlOl Nilell Sllc IldQ All 10
mash " young men. He spoke of the
unwillingness of Shubert TO give testimony
against the girl, and said it was to his
credit. He dwelt at length upon the act of
the girl in leaving her lodgings at ) A. N.
and going to the Pacific Hotel with Young
Trainor, and asked II that was the conduct
VI soou, ell lle saIu sile ouil
a. ''e' VI Iileso - -
anu II tileF Ii.u cGi.i-ll.tGi one u tllitl Vi
riit'H my ~ .ni,rn mGuit' ,.3, ;,,'' Dqe'
IeliS tiig III d .!iIliAiils HIuse,
IiiahlIS % i an M 'iIc
Iii''lel a. :" Johe nouiu 90 nav
Solie "a 'ne iee! AZ. u iigl
ro1oi %
Ia ~ ~ VI " ~
puplI' liou.e li,iiie pe ,'"t,-ss pUgtto
~ az va. II ~ L
9i,ai 10 ['s ~ 81 ~, ~
gu. ~
p1oHe 'li''' re I"u any niot4le II.
~ uGliiS an ia.IS eil.iS ma men
10 WIZ are ilioldlS SUI mo- Pun
ID" "a 90 ", ~ ~ ~
sli9 'lL'e ait ie.. 'ilII uoE i' al
III. OIi ~ - - %
~ - - ..l -
h''l;,'I ia,, 10 az Ioa5;T+ ,.l,,-, ~
S.'sliitls t .I 'ii Ia - -
u?ll' lilt pam VI w .i III %
1-e - 80 ~
ma. ceaLness VI iiyf re &C. ai,,' 'iie
Pes1 t'l oS''u''lA III " o''oe VI 'i1e NiiIu nc
q Sa NV e NJ IT,, ...,-,,,+
- 'ie CiGSS W ~ ~ a.
~ o0 a. -, VI al. 'l'N
ii''Ai' 'iie OU'H ''''A q i'O'9s 4'-'I' - Z n
AFTERNOON SESSION
At the opening Of Court, a L. Hart, of
counsel for defense. commenced his areu-
ment. which lasted until I o'clock He
said the ends of Justice demanded that the
defendants should be discharged He said
ne believed that the community would
consider it would be an outrage on public
Justice to hold the defendants. and thus
compel the county to pay the expenses Of
a trial that will only end in smoke. There
was nothing in the case at all. if the evil
denca of the prosecuting witness was 10 be
believed Either Won must believe Ida's
story or that Of Schubert and he had no
dollbt buf that the latter testified 10 the
truth. He held that the decision of the
supreme Court in the celebrated RODRIGUEZ
casa Governed this case. and under that CON
strI.ction of the law the defendants could
NOT he held a. CHARGED i'm the COMPLIANT
He did non believe flat Sbnbert had been
bribed as had been onenlv asserted in
Court
Grove I. Johnson. of counsel for defense.
made the closing argument. which occupied
but a very few minutes. He said he had
fully ARMED The case on The motion for a
1iscbar1e Of the defendants The Cnurt
deciGed AGAINST them then. and he couId
see of no reason why he should have
changed his mind since that time They
had introduced three witnesses Two 6f
them Mrs Wiley and Mrs Painter
corroborated the evidence of the prose
outino witness whilst Sbubert's evidence