Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-06-11
PEOPLE VS.. JANAURY.
Counsel for the Prosecution Made W.T.
nesses for the Defense.

1
capacity of Deputy State Treasurer, was re-
sumed at 10 A. NJ. yesterday.
William A. January resumed the witness
stand He said he never instructed his son
about how this money should be kept. Dld
not remember of ever having any cohYer-
sation with him regarding it.
General Carey-Y0u had charge Oh the
moneys, did you not?
| Witness-They were in the vault
General Carey-The moneys were dePos-
tied with you?
Witness-They were deposited with the
State Treasurer.
| DISCRIMINATION.
took the office of State Treasurer in
January. 1888, and retired December "a,
1884. MY son took the position OF deputy,
when | went into office, and renamed
until December Is. 1884. He was my agent
in no capacity; had no employment from
me individually. The vault where the
special deposits were kept belongs 10 the
State of California, and is the receptacle OF
the States funds. My son had legally as
much right TO have access to the vault as
did, and was practically more oil state
| Treasurer than | was. We received no
compensation for keeping funds for private
| individuals in the State vaults
| Mr. Edgerton-Did you testify III the
] other case?
| General Carey-We object on the grounds
| that it is irrelevant, incompetent and I'M
material.
The Court-The objection is sustained
| Mr. Edgerton exhibiting papers TO wit
ness)-Were these receipts shown you on
! the last trial, and is this the stub-book eX-
| hibited you at the same time?
Witness-They are.
| NJ. LVJoo,4O,, NVo, tho tnStiun OnV Won
| gave Yesterday and to-day the same as that
| given on the former trial? Was it not the
same in substance?
General Carey-We object, on the ground
| that it is incompetent.
| The Court-For the purpose of cross
examination. l think it is competent.
| Wimess-My testimony was the same.
was a witness on the other trial, and was
| examined in regard to all the receipts now
presented, or receipts OF similar charac-
| ter. NV testimony yesterday and to day
was the same-if not in language, in sub
| stance, to that given on the other trial. The
questions at the first trial may have been
| asked in a little different shape from what
| they were yesterday and to-day but the
subiect-mattar and evidence sought to be
obtained was the same. All the instruc-
tons my son received on entering upon the
duties of his office were rom Frank john
son, the deputy under the Hon. John We'll,
my predecessor
J. H. Miller, who interviewed the de-
PENDANT at the city prison on the night of
his arrest and published defendants adj
mission in the RECoRD-UNIoN on the fol-
lowing morning, was the next witness, and
detailed the principal points of the inter
view On crOSS-eXaminatiOn witness was
asked if he did not give the same testi-
mony, regarding the same money. the
same transaction, the same time place,
and deficiency, on the other trial, to all OF
which he answered yes.
Secretary of State Thompson stated what
he knew of the discovery of the shortage
| by the Board of Examiners. Mr.. ThOmp
sons testimony was identical with that
| given by him at the last trial.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
William Arlington, police officer, stated
that he was present at the city prison,
when defendant was interviewed by the
newspaper representative, and corroborated
the testimony given by the latter.
| [. Hartwell, Treasurer of Monterey
county, and r B. Hathaway, Treasurer of
| Contra Costa county, both testified to hav-
| ing left money with defendant on special
| deposit.
The last three witnesses did not testify at
| the former trial, and were not asked any
questions in cross examination.
The prosecution then announced that
they rested.
General Carey was the first witness called
for the defense.
The counsel for defendant asked him
many questions regarding the finding of
the two indictments-Nos. AGO and 500
and sought to establish the fact that they
were for one and the same transaction, viz,
the taking from the State vaults of the sum
of SO, 542 %.
W. Z. Doan. Deputy Court Reporter, who
made the stenograpiC report of the proceed
| ings OF the former trial, was next called.
| He stated that within the past two weeks
| he had been repeatedly asked by counsel
for defense to write cut the testimony, but,
owing to the large amount of Court work
| he daily had 10 perform, he had been I'M
able to do so. Witness handed over his
| stenographic book, saving that ii contained
the entire proceedings.
Mr.. Edgerton then offered to place the
stenographic notes in evidence.
| General Carey objected, on the ground
that it was incompetent The notes were
a mass Of hieroglyphics that could not be
read or understood by any person except
the reporter himself and were therefore
valueless as evidence.
The Court sustained the objection.
Mr. Edserton said he desired 70 show by
the reporters notes that the evidence given
by witnesses who testified at both trials was
| the same in each case He then desired the
witness to read from his notes the evidence
of certain witnesses on the former trial.
General Carey again interpOsed an OBJ
I lection that ii was incompetent ard imma-
| terial, and the objection was sustained.
Counsel for defense then asked time for
short consultation. They talked together
| few moments and then called Horny
Edgerton to the stand. After considerable
legal sparring, Judge Mckunc succeeding
in getting the witness, who said he was
present at both trials and heard all the tes-
timonV. to relate what W. ~ January
Thos. l.. Thompson, j. II. Miller, and !. II
Grady testified TO on both occasions. Wit
ness seemed to have an excellent memory.
detailed the evidence given OH both trials
minutely showing that it was the same.
and could be nothing else as the tranSac-
action was one and the same, and on both
occasions they had related all they knew
about ii.
Henry l. Buckley, the last witness, said
the $50 5l2 % mentioned in both indict-
defendant mentioned in both indictments
was the same individual.
The defense then rested, and the prosecu-
ton said they had no testimony to present
in rebuttal
The Court adjourned to 10 4. NJ. to-day.
when. after a short argument. the case will
go TO the jury
Letter from the Visiting Brahmin.
EDS. RECORD UNION: l am sorry to say
that the Museum Committee thought it
proper to stop an Englishman from asking
mo impertinent questions last night. Had