Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-09-02

exhibited the prisoner became very restless
and fidgetted nervously in his seat.
Police officer Agner testified to the cir
cumstances of the arrest, and the condition
of the house when visited by himself
and officer Rider, on the morning of
the 24th, the particulars Of which
have already been given. The officer
stated that the woman tainted twice while
being taken from her bed to the carriage, as
he supposed, from loss of blood. She was
so weak that she could hardly assist in put
ting on her clothes.
Kitty Fisher identified a blood-stained
dress as having belonged to Lilly Forrest
Witness lives near the latter's house, and
heard the screams coming therefrom on
the morning in question. She called loudly
for help, and said: " I'm nearly dead now
don't beat any more, or you will kill lnew
Heard the angry voice of man at the
same time Have seen the defendant COM
ing and going from Lilly Forests. The
disturbance seemed 10 have lasted for an
hour or more. Some person Knocked on
the door with a cane, and called to the man
doing the beating to stop. Saw Verheyan
leave the place the next day when the Off
GERS visited the house.
Louisa Hancock knew Lilly Forrest and
Verheyan, who lived next door to her. She
testified to the parties being present at her
house on the night of the difficulty, cele-
brating somebody's birthday. Some beer
had been drank, but no one was very
drunk About o'clock in the morning
she heard cries of Murder Police!" etc,
coming from Lilly Forests house. When
the police came to the latter place the next
morning, Verheyan came into the witness
house from the rear and passed out through
the hallway, saying: The officers are in
the house"
Officer LeaYy was called to identify
shirt taken from the person of the prisoner
shortly after his arrest. The latter had
said that his clothes became stained with
blood while carrying the woman up stairs.
THE DEFENSE.
The first witness for the defense was
Louis Verheyan. The witness denied that
he inflicted the wounds upon Lilly Forrest,
or that he knew how she received them.
He was drunk on the night in question.
Have known the complaining witness
nearly twelve years-in San Jose, San
Francisco and Sacramento. She goes by
the name OF Lilly Forrest.
THE CASE CLOSED.
The case was here rested, and the defense
held that when the prisoner was discharged
on the complaint of assault to murder, the
charge OF battery was included, as the act
complained of was one and the same.
Major Anderson cited authorities in sup
port of his argument that the former dis
charge was bar to the prisoner being
placed in jeopardy for the present offense.
Mr.. Brown argued that the Police Court
had no jurisdiction over the charge of as
sault TO murder further than to examine
the prisoner, and determine whether or not
there was sufficient ground on which to
hold him for trial in higher Court. He
cited the Penal Code, to show that pris-
oner cannot be placed in jeopardy until a
verdict had been rendered. In this in
stance, the Court saw fit to set aside the
examination for assault TO murder, but de-
termined upon trying the prisoner on
charge clearly within its jurisdiction.
The Court overruled the plea of the de
tense, to which exception was taken.
Subsequently the prosecution withdrew
its objection, and the ruling Of the Court
was rescinded.
Police Court Clerk Baker was then placed
upon the stand to prove the proceedings
had in the contemplated examination on
the charge of assault to murder.
The prosecution then held that the record
showed there had been no trial on the
charge for assault to murder, and objected
10 its introduction as evidence, which mat
ter was left to be settled in the Courts in
structions to the jury.
VERDICT OF GUILTY.
The case was argued by counsel and SUBJ
mitted to the jury shortly before o'clock,
who soon afterward brought in verdict of
Guilty"