Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-03-02
HARLAN AND BARNES.
Their Cases Before Judge Garoutte on
Habeas Corpus.

woodland Democrat, February 2Sth
Hon: Joseph Craig, on Friday afternoon.
filed his petition with Judge Garoutte of
the Superior Court, asking that Harlan and
Barnes be brought before that Court for
consideration of the question of admitting
them to bail. 1t will be remembered that
defendants are held under a commitment
from Justice Ruggles' Court, where they
are jointly charged with the killing of
Everett L. Craft
Promptly at l P. NJ. Saturday, the time set
for hearing the petition, the defendants
appeared in Court with counsel, viz:
Highton of San Francisco, and Ball. Craig
Coin, Grant and Baker of Woodland Re-
spondent was represented by District At
torney Sprague and Messrs. Clark and
Bush
Mr.. Sprague moved for continuance of
the case until Monday morning at 10
o'clock, setting forth as reasons therefor
that he had not sufficient notice of the
issuance OF the writ to be able to make
proper return and prepare his answer, and
further, that certain papers having been
taken from the Clerk office by counsel for
petitioners he had no opportunity to ex
anime them, all of which was necessary in
order that the respondendent be properly
represented.
Mr.. Highton objected to a continuance
and stated that petitioner was under no OBJ
legation to notify the counsel on the oppo-
site side. The Court held the showing of
the District Attorney sufficient to warrant
continuance, which was ordered until
7:30 P. NJ.
On reassembling the Courtroom was
well filed with spectators, who by this
time had become aware of the proceedings
III Court and were anxious to hear the
issue
Mr.. Sprague opened the case by filing a
demurrer on preliminary motion to auash
the writ on the ground that the petition did
not state facts which would justify the
granting of writ. He then read the petit
ton, which set forth briefly that the petit
TONERS, Harlan and Barnes. are held in
custody by Sheriff Beamer, and that they
are denied the right of bail and then sets
forth the evidence taken before the Coro-
ner's jury.
II was argued that the petition was ill.,
sufficient in not stating that the prisoners
were entitled to bail or that the presump-
ton of their guilt is not great, nor the
proof evident; and further, in showing that
there was no sufficient legal reason for their
detention. 1t was further argued that the
testimony before the Coroner could cut no
figure in this case, since the records show
the prisoners are not held because of any
proceeding had before the Coroner, or on
account of testimony given before him;
and that it could not form any part of the
case as to Barnes especially since his name
was not mentioned in that testimony. Mr..
Highton. in reply, argued that in matter OF
law the Court had jurisdiction to hear the
matter, IT there was no petition at all; but
that the petition was sufficient: that the
allegation that they were denied the right
to bail was equivalent to saying that they
were entitled to bail; and if so. then the
presumption of their guilt could not be
great nor the proof evident. He further
contended that all offenses are bailable at
law, except where the State makes out a
case within the exception; AMI that it de-
wolves upon the prosecution in this case to
show that these prisoners are not entitled
to bail.
The Court ruled that the petition should
be amended to conform to the above facts.
The District Attorney offered the evidence
taken before Justice Ruggles as part of his
return.
Hon. Joseph Craig. of counsel for petit
TONERS, then proceeded to read the petition
and evidence taken before the Coroner.
Respondent objected, as the evidence was
not the best evidence; that it was irrelevant,
incompetent etc.
After argument the Court decided to ad-
NIT the testimony.
Mr.. Highton then spoke for more than