Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-05-26
WHO STOLE THE GIN.
A Most Remarkable Case of Mistaken
Identity.

Identity.
One of the most remarkable cases n the
history of the Police Court is now pending
before that tribunal, and just what dispo-
sition will be made of it is hard to coniec-
ture.
On the 2Sth of March last man went to
the store of William Eberhardt and rented
gun, stating that he wished to use it at a
shooting match, which was to take place
near the Union House. From that day
until yesterday Mr.. Eberhardt never saw
his gun. The man who got the gun gave
the name of Holt, or at least Mr. Eber-
hardt understood that to be the name, and
so put it upon his book.
On Monday last, on the arrival of the
train from Woodland, Jacob Korn, of the
Union House, met at the depot George
Schultz, who during the latter part of
March worked for Charles Mack, near the
Union House. Knowing of the loss of the
gun, and thinking that Schultz was the
man who rented it. he said to him You
are a nice young man, to borrow gun and
not return it." Schultz was very indignant,
and wanted TO be shown the man who ac-
cused him of having taken a gun without
returning it. Mr.. Korn accompanied him
to Mr.. Eberhardts place when the latter
Immediately declared that Schultz was the
man who got the gun, took him to the sta
ton house, and swore out q complaint
charging him with embezzlement. Schultz
admitted that ne once rented q gun at
Eberhardts, but insisted that he returned
it. He said that he took il to the store,
and left it on the counter without
saying anything to any one, as the only
person present at the time was little girl
I..A oh 81 l. i
gun-case. The gun was afterwards idenh
fed by Charles Mack as one that he
had sold the prisoner, but the case be-
longed to the missing gun. All these cir
cumstances, taken with Mr.. Eberhardts
positive identification of the man, made a
strong chain of evidence against the de-
PENDANT, and on Wednesday he was con-
victed in the Police Court and ordered to
appear for sentence the next morning.
During the trial Schultz protested his in
nocence, wept and bewailed his fate in the
most frantic manner, but the evidence
| against him appeared to be absolutely con-
elusive.
On Thursday morning, when asked if he
b nd anything to say why sentence should
not be pronounced against him, Schultz
again protested that he was innocent, and
further stated that he believed he knew
where the gun was. He said he bought
| the case which was found in his trunk of a
man named Charles Hoise, who worked
on ranch near Woodland, and who
had gun that answered the description
given by Mr.. Eberhardt. Hoise had once
worked for a man named Ehrhardt who
| also lives near the Union House, and
Schultz had known him there. Hoise had
told him that he and another man had
bought the gun and case in Sacramento.
Chief Lee, who was present in Court, was
struck with this statement, and at his sug-
gestion the City Attorney asked the Court
to postpone the sentence until Monday
next, in order to give the Chief an oppor-
tunity to ascertain if there was any truth
in the statement.
After Court adjourned Schultz swore to
a complaint charging Hoise with embez-
Element and, armed with a warrant, Cap
tain Karcher went over to Woodland yes
terday, arrested Hoise and brought him to
this city. In his trunk was found Mr..
Eberhardts gun, and he admitted having
rented it for a few days shooting for so
cents. He said that another man was with
him, and stood on the opposite side of the
street while he went after the gun. He
could not explain why he did not return it..
The case is now in a decidedly interest
ing situation. Schultz has been convicted
of ENLIGHTENMENT of a gun which is found
in the possession of Hoise and which the
latter admits having gotten from Mr. Eber-
hardt, while Mr.. Z. persists in believing
that Schultz is the man who got the gun
from him.