Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-05-24
THE OTHER SIDE.
CLOSE OF THE PROSECUTION IN
THE BILLINGS CASE.
Grove l.. johnson Makes the Open
ing Statement for the Defense
More Testimony.

Grove L. johnson Makes the Open
ing Statement for the Defense
More Testimony.
On the r~eassembling of Judge Arm
strong's Court yesterday the hearing of the
case of the People against L. N. Billings for
the murder of Francis d. Lighthall was
resumed. The Courtroom was densely
packed with spectators. The family OF the
defendant and a few lady friends were pres
ent.
Mr.. johnson, counsel for the defense,
moved to strike out the testimony of Mrs.
Hildreth given on the preceding day,
which motion the Court denied, and the
defense excepted.
Henry Altpeter, a fisherman residing
near the place where the tragedy occurred,
testified to having heard two pistol shots
in that direction on the morning of March
LIST last.
Mrs. Matte Marsh being called, testified
that she resided near the Lighthall resi-
dence, and on the LIST day of March last
heard W pistol shots fired on the place
occupied by the latter.
Frank Hiidreth, a cousin of Francis
Lighthall, testified that he was present at
an interview between the defendant and
the Lighthalls on Tuesday preceding the
tragedy. Witness was there for the DUR.
pose of assisting in the removal from the
ranch. Overheard what was said between
the parties. Mr.. Billings said be had run
the ranch, u was going to run it.. If he
could not do it without, he had the tools
in his pocket with which to do it. Otis
Billings was present at the time.
The defense moved to have the witness
testimony stricken out, which was denied.
On cross-examinaiion, witness said the
remark was made toward the close of the
interview between the parties. Witness
had taken some part in the conversation.
Lucinda LightEall testified that she was
at the ranch on the Tuesday preceding the
tragedy; went there to help her relatives
move; heard the defendant say that he was
going to run the ranch, and had the neces-
sary tools in his pocket, etc. This was in
reply to a remark made by w. A. Light
ball to the effect that if he were running
the ranch he would not have Billings about
there.
On cross-examination witness said she
had talked with their lawyer about her
testimony. Had not talked about it with
any OtucI peTSOU.
William A. Lighthall testified hat he
was a relative of the deceased; met defend
ant Billings and his son at the residence of
the Lighthalls a couple of days prior 10 the
tragedy. Went there to help Luther O.
Lighthall to settle a bill with Billings
about a pair of horses. Told Billings that
If he (the witness) had the contract, he
would not allow Billings to bamboozle him
as the latter had the other Lighthalls.
The defense objected and the objection
was overruled.
On cross-examination witness said he
was not feeling very good natured when he
made the remark to Billings, as he felt the
latter had attempted to defraud them. Told
Billings what | thought about him. The
conversation was after the horses had been
paid for.
The prosecution here rested their case.
at the request of counsel for the defense
a recess was taken until l:30 p. NJ. to allow
him to prepare for opening that side of the
case. Mr.. Johnson said he was taken
somewhat by surprise by the rather sudden
termination of the prosecutions side of the
case.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
AT the afternoon session the Courtroom
was again crowded. The proceedings COM
menced by the opening statement of the
defense as made by Grove L. johnson, the
defendants brilliant attorney.
Counsel began his address with a few
words OF praise to the jury for the patient
and close attention they had paid to the
case thus far, and begging for the same
treatment of the defense.
The defense in this case, counsel said.
would be based upon Sections 1877, 1913 and
1919 of the Penal Code, which specified
cases in which homicide was Unsuitable.
L ond rrhsal x-arn ro,l r. - =
jury. That was the defense which counsel
would interpose in this case-the theory of
self.defense. Testimony would be pre-
scented to show that the killing was done
in self-detense, I'd protect the defendant
from an assault by the deceased and his
father.
Testimony would also be introduced to
fully explain the business relations be-
tween the defendant and the Lighthalls.
To do this, the defense would put in evil
dence the lease to the Billings ranch. The
prosecution has not introduced this lease.
although possessed of a O of it.
1t would be shown by the lease and other
testimony that the defendant reserved for
his use, during the life of the lease. the
barn on the premises, and that all of the
hay in the barn at the time the Lighthalls
took possession belonged to the defendant.
1t was all put in long before the LighthalIs
took possession. IL would be shown hat
In that lease the defendant reserved the
right to pasture his stock upon the ranch.
The defendant also reserved one room in
the nous for his own use.
1t was also a part of the agreement hat
the Lighthalls were to keep in repair ali
the fences on the place, and were 10 care
Tor the STOCK on the ranch which belonged
to the defendant, and that the defendant
had a perfect right to be upon the ranch at
any time. All this would be shown to
illustrate thoroughly the business relations
between the defendant and the L~ighthalls.
II would be shown that the Lighthalls
did not live up to their contract as stipu-
lated in the lease-that Luther O.. Light
hall abandoned the place. going to Court.
land TO work Tor another man and that he
had given up all connection with the ranch.
The ranch was neglected, in consequence,
and the defendant had &c do a great deal of
work and expend considerable money, thus
~accumulating quite a money claim against
the Lighthalls.
1t would be shown that on February DIST
the defendant and the deceased made q set
tlement of the business between them. by
which the defendant was to allow the de-
ceased Sl25 for work done, which the latter
thought he ought to be paid for. This was
TO apply on the Indebtedness of the de-
ceased TO the defendant. 1t would be shown
that the team ana wagon which the Light
halls claimed. was on that day delivered to
the defendant and taken away from the
ranch. 1t was a part of the agreement that
the Llgh'halls should surrender possession
of the ranch and move away, the defend
ant and bis son to assist in the moving.
1t will be shown that on the Tuesday be-
fore the killing the defendant and his son
went to the ranch with two teams, for
the purpose of helping 10 move the
Lightballs, as agreed. Luther O. Light
hall stated to the defendant that he wanted
some money. He answered that there was
no money due them. They refused TO give
possession until paid SIPS. and claimed
the team which they bad in their
possession. Defendant said they could
have the team if they paid
the balance due on ii according to the
original agreement. This they did, send
ing to town and getting the money.
1t would be shown tina the defendant
and his son took bay from the barn several
times without any protests whatever from
the Lighthalls.
1t would be shown that on Friday.
March lst, the day of the killing, the de-
PENDANT and his son went TO the ranch. 10
%getanother load of hay for Chris. Lang. A
comparison would be made between the
physical strength of the parties interested
it uould ha detnnpStratak that lafa,la,.