Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-02-15
GRAND JURY REPORT.
WHY CERTAIN DERELI6T OFF.
GALS ARE NOT INDICTED.
1t Claims That the Supervisors Are
Doing Business in Very
Loose Manner.

Yesterday at 4:35 P. NJ the Grand Jury sub
nitied the following partial report to Judge
Armstrong:
SACRAMENTO, February II, 1882
To the Honorable the Superior Court OF The County
Of Sacramento, State Of California; We, the Grand
Jury, beg leave to submit the following as a par
tial report of their transactions since the time of
their organization on the 10th day Of December,
1888, to date
/ We have been in session from time to time
and have, we believe, faithfully attended to all
the business brought before it,
There have been presented for our considera-
ton six cases of criminal character. One for
burglary one for grand larceny, one for nui-
sance, one for extortion and one for misde-
meanor.
We have found three true bills. as follows
One for burglary, one for grand larceny and one
We have ignored three cases, as follows: One
for extortion, one for nuisance and one for mis-
demeanor.
1t is but right to state that the cases ignored
were SO treated for want of jurisdiction by the
Grand Jury.
The Grand Jury has spent great deal OF
time in the examination of the gambling ques-
ton. This time has been lost. because of the
advice given TO the Grand Jury by the District
Attorney, Mr.. Elwood Bruner, to the effect that
the Grand Jury had jurisdiction, and that they
could indict the officers charged with the exc
cution of the laws pertaining to gaming, pro-
yided the testimony would show violation of
such laws and a willf1l negligence on the part
ofthe officers to enforce the law
We have found that the laws have been yio-
lated. That the peace officers have willfullF
neglected to enforce The laws, but at the
eleventh hour we are advised that such will
full negligence on the part of the oncers is ouly
misdemeanor, and not triab.e before the SUI
peIlor Court, ana consequently not within the
Jurisdiction of the Grand Jury. In Justice to
the Assistant District Attorney, Mr.. Brown, we
would say that he was not aware of the findings
OF ane Jury until he was asked to make out the
indictments, when he informed the jury that
" q ha6 mr. te6 he foil Nv
ing sections of the law in justification of his
position Section lis. Code of Civ Proceed
ure, and Section 10 of the Penal Code and
the case of ex parte Wallingford, 60th Caiifor-
MIA page 103, and Gafford vs. Bush, Goth Cali
fornia, page 149, and the constitutional provis-
ions cited in said cases and others not necessary
to mention.
We are using considerable prolixity in ex-
planning this matter, because we believe that
the people expect that this Grand Jury meant
to stop, if possible repetition of the scenes en-
acted in this city during the time the last State
FAIR was held, and we will say that we are still
willing to cope with the question should we
find any law to sustain us. The cases of extor-
ton and nuisance come under the same pro-
vision.
AT the request of the Grand Jury his Honor,
Judge j. W. Armstrong Judge of the Superior
Court, called US into Court gave us in concise
terms the law governing the official conduct OF
the Board OF Supervisors and of other county Of
ficials Fortified with those instructions we
continued an examination of the claims made
Board of Supervisors, and we regret to repeat
that the time and mental labor spent by the
State Legislature in formulating and enacting
what is known as the County Government Act,
and other statutes for the governing of counties
has been absolutely lost, so far our past Board
of Supervisors are concerned.
Judging from our partial examination we can
not readily imagine greater contempt for statu-
tory law than has been exhibited in the pay
ment of claims, and if this same looseness con
tinues in the same ratio to the end of the chap
ter. we beg to report that our labors will con-
tinue 10 the end of the term allowed by law to
the term OF Grand Jury. We are not prepared
to say that po,ti of the money allowed was
not honestly earned, because the testimony
would not justify it; but we are OF the opinion
that the following claims have been Illegally
paid, and would recommend that the District
Attorney make immediate demand fer the re-
coyery of the several amounts and, if neces-
sary, 10 commence a suit at law for the recovery
OF the same; and we would further recommend
that the District Attorney lose no time in using
all lawful means TO replace said amounts into
the County Treasury.
Following we append a list of persons to-
gether with the several amounts for which in
our opinion they are liable to the county of Sac
ramento Tor moneys illegally drawn from the
County Treasury