Evening capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1888-1893, 1889-12-02
HIS LAST RESORT.
He is Now Working on His Only Sal
walton for Escape From the
Hangman's Doom.

This afternoon in the supreme
court of Oregon, the famous case o.
The state Of Oregon, respondent, vs.
Charles Olds, appellant, appeal from
Multnomah county, was taken ur
and argument begun 10y Henry f.
McGinn. for the respondent and
Richard Williams for the appellant.
The cases no doubt are vel
known by almost every person In
the state who has been
reading the Oregon papers dur
ing the past six months
but for the benefit of those who
have not been in the state until
lately short statement of the un-
lucky affair Is given.
The defendant, Charles Olds, bet
ter known as Sandy" was indicted
by the grand jury of the county OF
Multnomah, OH the 18th day OF
May, 1889, and the charging part
of the Indictment is in the follow
ing words.
"The said Charles Olds, on the
10th day of May, 1889, in the cOun-
ty of Multnomah, did purposely,
unlawfully, feloniously and of de-
liberate and premeditated malice,
kill Emil Weber, by then and there
purposely, unlawfully, feloniously
and of deliberate and premeditated
malice, shooting .he said Emil
Weber with a revolver pistol, charg-
ed and loaded with gunpowder and
leaden ball, through the back and
head of him, the said Emil Weber" ]"
On the 20th day of May, 1889, the
defendant pleaded mot guilty" to
the indictment, and the trial of the
cause was set for the Goth of June.
At said trial had at that date the
jury were unable to agree, and were
discharged without having agreed
upon verdict. The court then d.
rected the parties to appear in court
on the Oath of June, in order that
the said cause might again be SET for
trial. On that day, by agreement of
the district attorney and counsel
for the defendant, the cause was set
for July 9th, 1889. On the Sd day
of July the defendant filed motion,
based upon his own affidavit, ask
ing that the cause be continued for
the term, which was denied as to
the term, but was allowed for the
period of one week, viz: until July
10Th, 1889. At that time the cause
was tired in Department Number
2 of said court, and resulted
in the defendant being found
guilty of murder in the first
degree" A motion for new trial,
filed September 9th, was denied,
and the defendant was sentenced to
be executed Nov. 1st, 1889. He now
presents this appeal, and claims that
errors were committed in the trial in
the court below which prevented
him from having fair and i'm
partial trial.
The points upon which argument
IS made for new trial are assigned
in the notice of appeal as follows:
lst. Error in refusing to grant the
iefendant's application for con-
tinuance of the case for the term.
I'd. Error in the matter Of draw
ng, summoning and impaneling a
ury.
3d. Error in receiving the testi-
nony of the witness, Tom Williams,
against the objections of the defend
mt.
4th. Error in refusing to instruct
he jury as requested by the defend
mt, as appears on page 80 of the bill
If exceptions.
The case has been one of consid-
,rable note, as both parties were
Well known all over the state. A
lot fight has been made by Olds
md his friends and yet without
uccess.
The case is being argued this even
ng and the argument will not be
'losed until late tonight, at which
ime 1t will be taken under consider
Ition, and 1t will be as late rs
before u decision will be
cached by the court.