Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-03-20
RHOADY FRIEND.
He COMES FROM MONTEREY ON
A VISIT.
Held to Answer on Two Serious
Charges - Other Interesting
Election Cases.

zens and a large number of persons who
were lately deeply interested in the fortunes
| of the =" straight ticket. Frank Rhoads
occupied q seat inside the rail, and was
/ quiet listener to some testimony that must
have been trifle annoying to him, to say
| the least.
The case which was attracting so much
attention was that of Dennis Coleman,
who was charged with resisting an officer
and assault with deadly weapon. City
Attorney Hart prosecuted the case with
vigor, being assisted by ex-Judge W. H.
| Beatty and Lincoln White. Major Ander-
| son defended the prisoner to the very best
| of bis ability. He interposed objections TO
| the testimony at all stages of the proceed
| ings, and made the best fight he could for
his client.
The first witness was George W. Ficks,
! who testified that on Tuesday, the 18Th
instant he was acting as a Deputy Sheriff
| at the First Precinct polls, corner of Third
| and J streets and wore star indicating his
| official position. His appointment by
| Sheriff Drew was admitted in evidence
over the objection of Major Anderson.
| Witness went on to state that the defend
ant stood opposite him the greater part of
| the day, assisting those who were attempt
| ing to vote illegally. Soon after noon wit
ness arrested a man named Harting for il
| legal voting, when Coleman and others at
| tempted to take the prisoner away from
him. He said that Coleman struck him on
the head twice and that in warding off the
| blows he struck Coleman.
NO LAW TO VIOLATE.
| At this point Major Anderson interposed
an objection to testimony of this character.
He said that there was no election law in
! the city of Sacramento. The city charter
was paramount to the Codes and to the
Constitution itself. There was nothing in
| the charter providing for an election in this
city and there could be no election under
| the Code. Growing warm he exclaimed:
say that under the laws of the city a
man could not commit an illegal act on
| that day in voting. The charter of the
| city is paramount to the Constitution
They are directly antagonistic and the
charter governs" He appealed to Judge
| Beatty to substantiate his statement that
| the Supreme Court had so held.
Judge Beatty said he was not bold
enough to claim that the charter of Sacra-
| mento was paramount to the Constitution
| of the State.
Major Anderson argued that the Board of
| Fire Commissioners, the Board of Educa-
| ton and other Boards were in direct con-
| flict with the Codes, and the Supreme
Court held that the charter governed. The
| election laws of this city were repealed in
| 1872 and had never been revived
| Judge Buckley overruled the objection
and Mr.. Ficks proceeded with his state
ment. He said that some hours after the
difficulty at the polls, as he was returning
| from the City Prison, where he had been
1 10 20 Alai,a L
| had arrested, he was confronted on |
street by the defendant, who applied vile
epithets to him and presented revolver at
| his head.
Hiram w. Johnson, who was a clerk at
the First Precinct polls, testified that he
saw both Ficks and Coleman at the polls
and saw the latter strike Ficks twice.
Ficks was acting as Deputy Sheriff and
wore star.
Deputy Constable Robert Goods testified
that he saw the three men ON / street at
| the time of the assault He was some
distance away but could see that Coleman
was
POINTING REVOLVER
| At Ficks, and the latter had his hand be-
| hind him, near his hip pocket.
| John 7. Shields gave evidence in regard
| to the trouble at the polls. He was an IN
willing witness, and said that he did not
know that Coleman was doing any more
| towards rescuing the prisoner than any
| one else. though he evidently did not want
him taken down, and told Ficks to let
him 90.
The prosecution rested their case, and
the defendant, Dennis Coleman, was put
upon the staEd. His story was that he did
not do anything at all. Ficks struck him,
| and he did not strike Ficks. He did not
know what he was struck for. In reference
| to the assault upon Ficks, he said We
| came down here from Mr.. Rhoads' to see
| what this young man Bragg was arrested
for. When l met this man | asked him
| what he strdck me for. He went back for
his pistol. Then l drew my pistol. He
held up his hands, shaking all over. and l
| said, Oh, go on, you cur and let him CO."
Judge Beatty then subjected the witness
to lively cross examination, of which the
following is a sample:
Q.-Where do you live?
Al live in Monterey.
Q.-When did you arrive in Sacramento?
A.-The night before the election
| Q.-Where did you put up?
Al thing l put up at the Western
Hotel.
Q.-Don't you know?
Al put up at the Western Hotel. That
is where | had room.
! Q.-Are you voter in Sacramento?
A.-No, sir. l am not.
Q.-How long did you stay about the
polls there, that day?
Al guess | was, off an on, about four
| or five hours.
Q.-What were you doing?
A.-Doing nothing. Only looking on.
Q.-You came here from Monterey
county?
A.-No. l live in Monterey, but came
from San Francisco. l have been living in
Monterey since last May.
WHAT HE CAME FOR.
Q.-What did you come up for?
Major Anderson objected to the question
and to the whole line of testimony He
argued that, under the decision in the case
of the People VS.. O'Brien, reported in the
Goth California, the right of cross-examina-
ton was confined to the matter testified to
on the examination in chief.
Judge Buckley said that he had not read
that decision, and if it had been so decided
it was reversal of all former rulings. He
decided to hear the evidence and strike it
out later if counsel could show that such
| was the decision.
Judge Beatty then proceeded with the
cross examination.
Q.-What did you come up for?
Aust come up to see some friends of
| mine.
Q.-Who were the friends you came up
| to visit?
Al came up here to see Mr.. Rhoads.
have known Mr. Rhoads for long time :;
had not seen him for couple of years,
and / came up to see him. Witness further
stated that he owned ranch in Monterey :;
that he formerly kept q saloon in San
Francisco, and was for six months deputy
under ex-Sheriff Hopkins, and that he re-
| signed that position.
Major Anderson again raised his objec-
ton, and, as it was within few minutes of
II o'clock, the Court took recess until
| $50 O'Clock.
When the afternoon session opened
Major Anderson cited to the Court the
decision in the case of the People VS..
O'Brien, and Judge Buckley sustained the
objection and struck ont that portion of
the testimony.
Pat Skelley swore that Ficks was chal-
longing everybody al the polls, and created
more disturbance than any one else; that
he challenged fully half of the voters who
presented themselves. He thought he
! must have challenged $50 persons. On
Denomination he admitted that man
had a right to challenge any one whom he
believed had no right TO vote
A man named Lewiston testified to the
same effect.