Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-03-20

ing as Deputy Sheriff, wore his star in
sight, challenged voters in a proper man
ner and created no disturbance.
]. A. Woodson testified that he saw Ficks
on duty and that he saw no improper
action on his part. Saw his star and heard
him announce that he was Deputy Sheriff
at the time of the difficulty. Saw Coleman
strike at Ficks twice, but could not see
whether he hit him or not
Sol. Rosenfeldt testified that he saw Ficks
wearing his badge
Judge Buckley reviewed the testimony at
length, and stated that he would hold the
defendant to answer to the Superior Court
on both charges. The bail was fixed at
81 900 in each case.
CoLEMANs RECORD.
Captain Lees Chief of Detectives Of San
Francisco, and Chief of Police Crowley.
say that Coleman, while at the Cremorne
Theater some years ago, and while holding
the position of Deputy Sheriff, was in COM
panS with man named Clarity and saw
him shoot man named Deborson, and al
lowed Clarity to escape. For this neglect
of duty he was discharged by Sheriff Hop
kins.
BEFORE JUSTICE POST.
George A. Turley was examined before
city Justice of the Peace C. n Post, and
held to answer before the Superior Court
on charge of felony, in having voted lille
gally on Tuesday last. The witnesses for
the prosecution were II. II. Love, w. W
Cone, w. B. Turley, Joseph Guth and E.
II. Mckee.
G. r. Henry was examined on charge
of having attempted to bride J. C. Sullivan
TO vote illegally. The prosecution was con-
Quoted by Assistant District Attorney
Jay r. Brown, and ]. W. Hughes and E. J.
Dwyer appeared as counsel for the defend
ant. Sullivan testified that on the morn
ing of the election he was requested to
watch persons coming out of saloon next
door to the Bee Office, and find out who
was buying votes. He saw Henry come
out and join man on the corner of X and
Third streets, and go with him to the La
fayette Saloon. He followed them. After
taking drink they went to breakfast in
restaurant on K street, above Fourth He
went in and took breakfast at the next ia
BILE to them. He asked them if they were
voting in the city that day, and Henry said
yes, and asked him if he had voted. He
replied that he was not entitled to vote
Henry said that made no difference-there
was 81 in it that he could take him to the
man who was paying it, and wanted him
to 90 with him. Sullivan declined to 60,
and reported the matter to Lincoln White,
who advised him to swear out a complaint,
which he did.
George Mckee was put upon the stand
and testified he had known the defendant
somewhere from week to three weeks.
That he had told him that be had come
here to get work and be doctored for
tape-worm.
The defendant took the stand in his own
behalf and told substantially the same
story as Sullivan. He said, however, that
he had no interest in the election. He
knew that they were paying 50 for votes
because the man who was with him told
him so and wanted him to vote for that,
which he did not do. All he did in Sulli-
vans case was to tell him that he could
put him on to man that would give him
81 for vote.
Justice Post took the case under advise
ment until to-day at one o'clock.
THE GIBSON CASE
The case of Fred w. Gibson will come
up before justice Davis at one o'clock to-
day. The complaint in his case is sworn
to by G. N. Henry, the defendant in the
above case, who charges him with bribing
Frank Abbott to vote illegally on election
day. Abbott, upon being arrested, stated
that he had been paid 81 for his vote and
afterwards denied it and then reaffirmed
it.
In this connection an incident occurred
yesterday which caused considerable COM
ment. 1t was reported that J. f. Ramage,
who has been employed as counsel for Glib
son, yesterday applied at the County Jail
for permission to see Abbott one of the
witnesses for the prosecution, which re-
quest was denied. He then went away
and returned with District Attorney
Bruner, who told the Deputy in charge
that Ramage had his permission to visit
the prisoner. Still the Deputy declined to
permit the interview without the authority
of the Sheriff, claiming that the proceed
ing was very unusual one. When Sheriff
Drew arrived he told the District Attorney
that if he desired Ramage TO see the pris-
oner he would permit the interview-in the
presence of the jailer. Ramage was there
fore permitted to talk with Abbott in the
presence of jailer Newbert.
District Attorney Bruner was seen by a
reporter of the RECORD UNION and asked if
the above statement was correct. He said
that 1t was, with the exception Of the fac.
that he asked that the jailer or Deputy
Sheriff be present when the interview took
place. He said he could see no harm in it,
but he had taken the precaution of con-
sulting with other lawyers. who advised
him that it was all right, so long as an
officer was present. He believed that
every man had right to prepare his de-
Tense, and if there was a man in jail whom
he thought was a witness for him, he
ought to be permitted to find out whether
such was the case or not AS one of the
Sheriff s officers was to be present. no job
could be put up without the fact being
known. He thought that criticism of the
act was uncalled for.