Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-10-19
JAILED FOR CONTEMPT.
WHAT IT COST D. M. VANCE FOR DIS
0BEYING A COURTS ORDER.
He is Fined $500, and Goes to JaiI-Ru
mors of Serious Charge Grow
ing Ont of the Case.

The imposition by the Superior Court
yesterday of fine of $500 upon one D. NJ
Vance for contempt in disobeying an in.
junction of the Court, has revived some
interest IN the matters growing out OF the
trial OF that charge. 1t seems that there is
now pending in the Superior Court of this
county suit entitled J. G. Pennie, admin.
istrator of the estate of Kate D. McLaugh-
lin, deceased, vs.. Sebastian Visher ct al.
Incidental to that suit an injunction was
issued, restraining the defendants from in.
terfering in any way with the tenants in
possession OF large number of parcels of
land in Sacramento and San Joaquin coun-
ties, that came to the Mclaughlin estate
through the Western Pacific Railroad grant.
and the injunction was served upon Vance,
who was one of the defendants.
Some weeks since, upon the presentation
OF affidsvits, the Superior Court issued a
citation to Vance TO appear and show cause
why he should not be punished for cor.
tempt of Court, and on the trial of thst
charge it appeared that Vance had gone TO
field in poss sion of one Miner. a tenant
under the Mclaughlin estate, and forcibly
taken onefourih of the grain, claiming
that ne was entitled to it as rent, and to
justify his action lie testified that he had
moved on to an adjoining Quarter section
OF land about a year ago
The opposing attorney Judge Denson)
however, showed him an affidavit purport-
ing TO have been made by him in The csse.
in which he was represented as testifyipg
that as late as March, 1889. he was a resi-
dent of the city of Stockton. Vance
promptly acknowledged his signature to
the affidavit, but declared, under oath. that
he never had sworn to it, and had not seen
Chsrles E. Kelly, the San Francisco Notsry
Public, before whom the affidavit appeared
TO have been made, and that several other
persons We're present when he signed the
paper.
HAS AN UGLY LOOK.
From this statement it appeared that one
of two things had been done Either that
Vance committed perjury in swearing that
he had not made the affidavit, or that
somebody had committed another crime in
presenting forged affidavit to the Court.
Hence, Judge Armstrong called the atten-
ton OF the Grand Jury recently impaneled
by him TO the matter, and while, as in duty
bound, the officers having the matter in
charge refuse TO give any information, still
1t is an open secret about the Court house
That number of witnesses have been sub
ppnaed from Stockton, San Francisco and
elsewhere, and developments may soon be
expected.
THE COURTS DECISION.
Judge Armstrong, in his decision yester-
day, reeited the fact that on January 7.
1889, an injunction was duly issued from
the Superior Court of this county, eDioin-
ing and restraining the defendants, and all
persons acting under their control, from
entering upon any of the lands described
in the complaint and from interfering with
any of the plaintiffs tenants or agents
therein; that the said writ of injunction
had been served in due form on defendant
d. NJ. Vance; that, from affidayits filed by
A. E. Miner and John McCarty, it appeared
that defendant D. NJ. Vance had entered
upon the northeast quarter of section 81,
township north, range 8 east, on which
said Miner and McCarty were engaged in
harvesting crop, as tenants of the plain
TIL, taken possession of the land and por-
ton OF the crop, and occupied and cult
waited the same for his own use and benefit.
1t appearing to the Court, after full
hearing, that the acts of Vance were in
violation and disobedience Of the iniunc-
ton, and therefore in contempt of Court,
the defendant was adjudged guilty as
charged, and ordered to pay fine OF $500,
and TO be committed to the custody of the
Sheriff until paid
Vance was at once taken in charge by
Sheriff McMullen and locked up. Up to
last night no steps had been taken looking
to his release, but it is presumed that he
will take an appeal and be allowed bis
liberty under the appeal bond, unless the
Grand Jury should find an Indictment
against him for the more serious offense of
perjury.