Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-07-08
HELD TO ANSWER.
Avery. Austin and McGinuiss 70 be Tried
l,Y a Jury.

by jury.
For some weeks past much has been SAID
upon the streets and in the newspapers re-
garding the cases of Avery, Austin and
McGinniss, who are charged with fra1du-
lently obtaining marriage license from
the County Clerk, and endeavored 10 secure
the marriage of Eugene Avery, under an
assumed name, to Miss Maggie j. Hill
Austin was at one time arrested for per-
jury and Avery and McGinniss Tor suoofn-
alton of perjury. They had preliminary
examination before Justice Henley, sitting
as Police Judge and were discharged. Sub
sequently they were again arrested. Aus
tir was charged with falsely personatlng
another, in violation of Section 529 OF the
Penal Code, which says that any person
who falsely persOnates another and IN such
assumed character either yerlhes, puDnshes,
acknowledges or proves, IN the name oil
another person, any written instrument,
with intent that the same may be recorded,
delivered and used as true, is punishable
by Imprisonment in the county jail not ex-
ceeding two years or by fine not exceeding
5000 Avery and McGinniss were charged
with criminal conspiracy, under section
1S2 of the Penal Code.
The evidence elected the fact that
Austin went to the County Clerk, procured
q marriage license upon deposition Tor IL.
C. Avery, resident of San Francisco, %
wears of age, and Maggie ]. Hill, q native
of Ireland, a resident of Sacramento, ~
years of age. The affidavit required by
the County Clerk was signed by Austin,
III. C. Avery and witnessed by McGin-
Mss When the marriage was about to be
consummated the wrong name was dlscoy,
cred in the license, and Miss HllI refused
to proceed with the ceremony the minis
ter also declining to have anything to do
with what upon its face seemed to be q
fraud. A large number of witnesses gave
testimony, among others the County Clerk,
whose testimony was positive and appa-
rently conclusive although disputed by
two of the defendants, Austin and McGin-
Mss. In support of the County Clerk S test-
mony, the affidavit referred to was intro
duced in evidence. Grove L. Johnson ap-
peared for defendants. The prosecution
was represented by District Attorney
Buckley, City Attorney Hart and w. a. An
derson.
in the opening argument for the prose-
cution, City Attorney Hart read the law,
and reviewing the evidence introduced in
the case, showed how clearly it had been
violated He claimed that the affidavit
on file in the County Clerks Office which
had been signed by Austin as II. G..
I Avery was q Court record. lie reviewed
| the case at length, and claimed that it was
q wise provision Of the law which pro-
vided for the punishment of those who
| wished to tear down the bulwark that So
ciety had built around the marriage cere-
mony. In his opinion and he cited many
authorities in support OF 1t, the defendants
| were clearly guilty of the crimes charged.
Grove l.. Johnson in his argument was
particularly severe upon the newspapers.
He said if they are held, it is in conse-
| quence of the diseased sentiment built up
in this community by the local press. He
claimed that the question of conspiracy
had not been proven. Avery had not been
falsely impersonated, for he consented to
the act of Austin. The latter was acting
for him and by his orders. There was no
! intent on the part of Austin to do a
wrong; he was acting in good faith went
to the Comfy Clerks Office to get mar
riase license for q friend, and got it. He
did not think jury, even if composed of
/ Sacramento newspaper reporters, would
| find the defendants guilty. He claimed
| that the affidavit Austin signed was neither
read nor explained to him, and consequently
was of no force The newspapers have
cried fraud; but there was no fraud, for
! Avery was willing to marry Maggie Hill
under that license, and such a marriage
would be just as binding as any other. He
! blamed the newspaper reporters for all the
sympathy created for the Hill sisters. He
| sympathized with Miss Hill, also; but
much of her troubles was due to her lay-
! ing bad advisers Her sister had been her
| evil genius. Avery and Maggie would
| have been married at Woodland had it not
/ been for her sister. He thought it would
be trayesty on justice to hold the young
men to answer. There was a fatal variance
| between the affidavit charged in the COM
plant and the one offered in evidence.
At this point Maggie Hill was seen 10
show an old, musty-looking letter to her
attorneys. Ayery's quick eye caught sight
OF the omnous-looking missive and call
ing Mr. Johnson's attention it, the latter,
addressing the Court, said he objected to
the bringing in of any old letters al this
stage of The case.
}lr. Anderson replied that he did not
! propose to do so, and passed the document
! over to the reporters, saying, Il don't see
! where Houston comes in; do your
GRACE CHURCH.
SAN FRANCISCO Easter Monday, 1870
Thereby certify that on Friday, the 18th day
/ of April, A. D. 1870, in Grace Church, baptized
| Eugene Anderson, son of William and Susannah
Avery, Frederick and Annie Johnson being
sponsors. JAMES S. BUSH, Rector
w. A. Anderson, in the closing argu-
ment for the prosecution, said that Mr.
Johnson'S entire argument was not 20 the
point at issue. The question YVES simply
did Austin impersonate Avery before the
! County Clerk? The fact that he imper-
sonated H. c. Avery and accomplished his
| object was clearly established. 1t mattered
not whether he was sworn or not, because
he procured license from public official
by such impersonation. The County Clerk
was imposed upon. Austin acknowledged
! that it was his signature, and verified or
proved his statement by McGinniss. The
intent was to induce the County Clerk to
believe that he was delivering marriage
license directly to Hiram c. Avery. Avery
was impersonated, the Clerk was imposed
! upon and the license was issued. He re-
viewed the testimony of McGinniss and
Austin, and said they stood before the
! Court self convicted. McGinniss SAYS he
was called upon to'sign his name, leading
the Clerk to believe that Austin was Avery,
! when at the same time he knew an impo-
sition was being practiced There was
no occasion Tor all this underhanded
work to try to right the wrong
| that Avery had done to this injured
| girl. Why should three stalwart men do
such thing after dark. in such a secret
| and clandestine manner? 1t was simply
and solely because they wished to impose
upon her, and give her name to which she
would not be entitled, in order to cover up
the infamous acts of Avery. No wonder
| the girl, her sister and friends, regarded
with suspicion subsequent offers of mar
rage. Had they not imposed upon her
once, and tried 10 have a mock marriage
performed ? Defendants pleaded that they
did not intend to commit a wrong. Their
own statements, their own acts, disclose q
conspiracy coneoeted, deeply laid, to iniure
these girls Three strong, powerful, ath-
le;ic educated young men plotting against
a poor, helpless, injured young woman ,
! They say, as an excuse. this assumed name
was to keep the marriage secret from his
class mates in college. A woman that is
good enough for a mans lust is good
/ enough for his wife-is as good as he is !;
is his equal anywhere, at any place, and
on any occasion. The newspapers, when
they fulfill the duty they owe 10 their
readers, expose and bringt to the light of day
sail character ofcrimes committed. It's their
duty-one that they should not shirk.
When they see any of the blaelness and
/ hideousness of crime they should drag it
out. They saw il in this case. They have