Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-06-12
Verdict of Not Guilty.

:
had been tried on separate charges, Whert
but one crime really had been committed
In all the cases quoted, however there olC
not appear to have been q former convlc
ton, as in this case, and their argument
was pointless. Judge Van Fleet remarked
to Henry Edgerton, when the latter arose
with a law book in his hand and proceeded
to address the Court, that he deemed II I'M
necessary for the defense to make an argu-
ment, as he was convinced the prosecution
was in error on the point.
Judge Van Fleet gave the usual form al
instructions as to the rights OF the DEFEND
ant and the people, and charged me jury
in effect that in order to convict the de-
PENDANT of the crime of grand larceny they
need not find that the defendant took the
entire sum charged, but that 1t was suffl-
Gent to sustain the charge if the defendant
was found to have taken any sum exceed
| ing fifty dollars; that the jury need not
| find that w. \. January was the absolute,
unqualified owner of the money alleged to
| have been stolen, but it would sustain the
indictment if they found that the money
was on deposit with w. A. January right
| fully in his possession, and not the money
| of the defendant. The Judge then gave
the following charge on the defendant
| special pleas:
The defendant, as have stated has put IN a
plea of Il former conviction OF the of1ense
! charged i'll this Indictment, and also plea that
| he has heretofore been placed in jeopardy upon
an Indictment for that offense. on this subject
! legally be punished or convicted of
| an ofIense if he has been formerly
| tried for that otfense, whether the former
trial resulted in an acqulttal or IN a conVlctlon
| The only question as to which any diihculty can
arise in such case, is as to whether the otIense
of which the defendant was formerly convicted
is the same offense as that for which he IS after
| ward put on trial On this point instruct you
| that the two ufenSeS are considered i'll law to
| be the same, whenever the act committed by
| the defendant and for which he is prosecuted
| is the same in both cases, no matter what the
| form of the charge may be. II the defendant
has committed only one criminal act, the State
| is not allowed to punish him twice for that act
| by calling it by two different names.
! In this case. the indictment 90. 1866, which
was put in evidence, charges that the defend
ant embezzled $50 5i2 % in money, alleged
| to be the property of one W. A. January
while the Indictment on which he is now being
| tried charges him with the larceny of $50 $40 %
| in money also alleged to be the property of w
| A January. Now, If you should find from the
! evidence that the money described III these two
indictments Is the same identical money, and
| that the acts of the defendant alleged to have
been committed in taking that money were the
same in both cases, then you should find that
the offenSeS charged are the same, notwith-
standing the difference in the form of the
charge. In other words, if it appears that the
act done by the defendant which i'll the for
mer case was charged as embezzlement is the
same identical act which is now charged as
larceny, then i'll law the two indictments charge
the same offense, and the different name by
which it is called makes no difference. If,
then, you should find from the evidence that
these two indictments charge the same offenSe,
You will then inquire whether the defendant
was convicted or placed in jeopardy under the
first Indictment \ person is placed in jeopardy
when he is put upon his trial upon an indict
ment good in form before jury sworn to try
the case; and he is convicted whenever verdict
of gully is rendered by that jury upon that in
dictment even though Judgment has not yet
been entered upon that verdict On these
points | instruct you that the Indictment (No.
1866 given in evidence is good in FORM and that
the record in that case, which was read to YOU,
upon his trial upon that indictment
before Jury sworn to try the
case, and that that jury rendered Il
verdict Of guilty upon that indictment. This
evidence is sufficient in law to support the pleas
of former conviction and once in jeopardy, if
the offenses charged in the two indictments are
the same. In accordance with these principles
of law therefore instruct you, that, if you find
from the evidence that the defendant was put
upon his trial before sworn Jury upon an IN
dictment, good in form, charging the same
criminal act for which he is now being tried,
and that the jury in that case rendered a YER
dict of guilty which has not been reversed or set
aside, then it is your duty to return a verdict
for the defendant, upon the pleas OF
former conviction and once in jeopardy
l will remark in this connection that. to support
these pleas, it is not necessary that the testi-
mony given on the former trial should have
been precisely the same as that given in the
present case. The only object OF inqulrlng what
that testimony was is to find out whether the
matter tried in that case was the same matter
which is bNpg tried now. If, therefore, you
should find that the matter which was the sub
ject of investigation on that trial was the same
that which is now being investigated, you
would be justified in finding that the offense for
lVn 10 the
same as that for which he is now being tried,
no matter how different the testimony may
have been.
The jury retired at 1855 A. NJ, and at
1902 P. NJ. announced that they had agreed.
Upon their return to the jury-box they
handed the following verdict to the Judge,
which was read aloud by the Clerk:
We the jury in the above entitled cause find
as follows: On the defendants plea of not
guilty, we find not guilty. On the plea OF for
mer conviction we, the jury, find for the defend
ant. On the defendant plea of once in jeopardy
we, the Jury. find for the defendant.
ROBERT ALLEN, Foreman
a motion will be made this morning to
dismiss the four remaining indictments.
. COMMITTED SUIcIDE.-The San Francisco
Post of last evening refers as follows to the
suicide of woman who at one time re-
sided in Sacramento: The usual crowd
of loafers hung around the Morgue this
morning in hopes of seeing the remains of
Rosa Entorff, otherwise known as Rosa
Easton, handsome young woman of easy
virtue, who committed suicide Yesterday
afternoon, by shooting herself in the right
side of the head, in the lodging house at
% Dupont street. She left a note giving as
a reason for suicide the fact that " life has
been hard" for her, and she was :" too much
of a coward TO stand it." The deceased
came. several years ago. from Kansas City,
Mo, where her invalid mother lives, and
had packed up her trunks for departure
yesterday. She had attired herself in all
the finery and diamonds she possessed. She
was a divorced woman, who. at the age of
fifteen, married Joseph Hart, 4 saloon
keeper now at Sacramento. The divorce
was on the grounds of his extreme cruelty.
The intelligence that her lover was to
marry some one else is supposed to have
urged her 10 self-destruction'
TAKEN TO AUBURN Sheriff Huntey. of
Placer county, took to Auburn yesterday
from Santa Rosa the man Frank Kamp-
mier. who surrendered himself to the
officials at the latter place last Monday,
stating that he was the person who acct
dentally shot and killed Miss May Pink
ham in a car near Roclllin The prisoner
does not answer the description given the
officers of the individual who was seen
running away from the train, and who
subsequently stopped at a house and OBJ
tanned a hat. He might have remained in
Sacramento and escaped suspicion, unless
the injury to his head and face, sustained
when he jumped from the car, had at
tracted attention. He disguised himself
after his arrival here, on the Monday fell
lowing the accident, by having his whiskers
shaved off; and subsequently left for San
Francisco on the steamer. He will prob
ably have an examination at Auburn, in
order that it may be determined whether a
criminal charge will hold against him.
METROPOLITAN THEATER.-At the Metro
politan tonight Aimee, the former opera
boufe queen, now gaining laurels a. a
comedienne, will commence briefengage-
ment. supported by J. V. Barrows and an
efficient company, appearing in the farcical
comedy " Nam Zellef and introducing a
number of songs, including Pretty as
Picture" which she renders so cleverly as
to cause it to be invariably received with
enthusiasm. The character of the French
girl in the comedy was written expressly
for Aimee. and it fits" giving her an OPP
portunity for brilliant acting, while her
Slightly imperfect English becomes very
appropriate She and her company scored
a great success at San Francisco, and doubt
less will here Tickets can be secured at
Houghton'S at 81 each.