Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-11-23
WAS A DOE-SKIE.
TR0NG PROOF OF ILLEGAL TRAFFIC
IN DEER HIDES.
The Jury in the Blair Case Disagree on
the Point of Defendants Grim
inal Intent.

pie against John Blair, on charge OF
violating the provisions of Section 626 of
the Penal Code, in having in his possession
deer-skin from which evidence of sex
had been removed, came on for trial in
Justice Divine's Court yesterday. The
prosecution was conducted by Deputy
District Attorney A. ]. Bruner, and A. L.
Hart appeared for the defense. Some time
was consumed in securing jury, and some
queer admissions were made by members
of the panel. One Is. Poska) admitted
that he had prejudice against the game
law, as he was in Sonoma county once
when a man was arrested there for having
a doe-skin in his possession. He said he
would not vote to convict a man under the
law, even if the evidence was clear against
him.
The Court told him he was excused. as
it was apparent that he was not fit to sit on
ihe case then on trial, nor on any other
case. James Miller, who was once a
member of the Legislature, also startled
those present by declaring that he was OPP
posed to all such laws. In other words
these citizens are in favor of allowing few
lazy vagabonds TO eXterminate the game of
the State-which is one of its most attrac-
tive features-for the few dollars they
might pocket by depriving the respectable
people of the State, and the generations to
come, of a fair portion of the wild game
that Nature had provided for their use and
benefit.
After twelve Jurors had been secured,
Mr.. Bruner opened the case by stating
briefly that the prosecution would show
that the defendant had in his possession
last month deerskin that had been mu-
tilated in the manner prohibited BY the
Penal Code
Mr.. Hart, in stating the case for the de-
fense said they would show that Mr..
Blair never had the hide in his possession;
that it did contain the evidences of sex;
that it was not doeskin, and that it was
left in defendants warehouse without the
latter's knowledge.
The first witness called was Martin COT
fey, the police officer, who swore out the
complaint against the defendant He tes-
titled that last month he called at the ware
house of W. K. Knights & Co.; that Mr.
Blair was in charge of the place, that a
workman was asserting a bundle of deer
hides from which witness took one He
went to Mr.. Blair and asked him if he was
in charge of the place, and he said he was
Witness then told Blair that he would
have to swear out complaint against him
for having an illegal deerskin in his DOS
session. Mr.. Blair looked at the skin and
said he believed it was a doe-skin: that the
bundle had come in that morning
Mr.. Bruner exhibited the skin offered in
evidence, and the defense admitted that it
was one obtained from Mr.. Blair The
skin was considerably mutilated.
Another skin was shown about which
there was no question as to the sex, it be-
ing plainly that of male.
On cross examination witness said that
on q second visit to the place he found
Mr.. Blair examining the skins, and Blair
remarked that they were a fine lot. The
witness said that so far as he could see
the skin seized by him bore no evidence of
sex.
The prosecution next called Thomas
Tunstead, a Deputy Fish Commissioner of
San Francisco. He testified that he had
been tanner for more than twenty years,
and had hunted and raised deer and tanned
their skins. The witness took one of the
skins and explained to the jury where the
evidence of sex had been removed.
On cross examination the witness re-
lated his long years of experience in the
tanning business. AS to the mutilations
of the skin in evidence, he maintained his
direct testimony. He said that as an ex-
pert, he could tell that the skin in evil
dence was that of doe, but persons of
ordinary experience could not determine
the sex from the looks of the hide.
After recess the prosecution called Coun
ty Clerk Hamilton to prove by the records
of his Office that the members of the firm
of W. R. Knights q Co. consisted of John
Blair, w. r. Knights and W. D. Knights. |
Witness examined the hide offered in
evidence, and testified that it was that of a
doe, and the udier had been removed.
On cross examination General Hart
asked the witness how long since he had
killed deer.
Three months, replied the witness.
WAS it doe or buck?n
Mr.. Hamilton gave the attorney look
of whitening scorn, as he replied, en-
phatically, 1T was buck !"
You're more of bear-hunter than g
deer-hunter. are you not?" facetiously
asked the counsel.
Mr. Hamilton modestly replied that he
had never shot bear.
A. A. Cook, the well-known architect
and sportsman, was called, He examined
the skin in evidence, and said he could not
determine, from its appearance, the sex of
the animal from which it was removed, as
it bore no evidence of sex.
W. K. Knights was the next witness
called by the prosecution. He was advised
by General Hart not to answer any ques-
tions asked him by the prosecution. Mr..
Bruner asked witness if he was a member
of the firm of W. r. Knights Il Co., and
he declined to answer the question on the
ground that to do so might tend to crlmi-
nate himself
The prosecution here closed the case, and
P. H. Dodge, the glove-maker, was called
by the defense. He was shown the skin Of
fered in evidence, and testified that he be-
m haf no ct-ir Of a hot
it had not been mutilated to the extent de-
scribed by witnesses for the prosecution.
Witness showed other skins to illustrate
his theories, enc of which was undoubtedly
and admittedly that of doe.
On cross examination the witness was
shown the skin of a male deer in compar-
ison with the one offered in evidence, and
maintained-notwiihstan the differ
ence between them-that both were the
skins of male deer. Mr.. Dodge further
contended that the color of 8 doe and of
buck does not differ at the same season of
the year.
The defense next called J. R. Watson, a
rancher of Trinity county. He had hunted
deer, and dressed one or two skins a year.
After examining the skin IN evidence, he
said he should take it to be that of a buck.
He did not think it had been cut and ex-
planned at length why he believed it to be
that of male.
On cross-examira ion the witness showed
how little he knew of the anatomy of a
deer. He had great many suggestions
TO offer, but evidently had very little prac-
Ii 81 knowledge of the subject. He testified
that he had been interested in the sale Of
hides.
John Blair, the defendant, was called
and testified that he had not seen the hide
in question until he saw it in the hands Of
officer Coffey, and did not know it was in
his house at the time. Some time prior TO
that he found hides in his house that did
not show the sex of the animals from
which they were taken, and had thrown
them out. Both witness and his partner
had written to their agents not to send doe