Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-02-20
RIYETT ROUTED.
THE JURY DECIDE THAT HE MADE A
SERIOUS BLUNDER,
And Committed an Infraction of the Law
"A Verdict of Guilty onthe Charge
of Misdemeanor.


unlawfully retaining in his possession GER
tain articles. the property of the State, and
refusing to give them up when ordered so
to do by the officers of the regiment. A
venire for twenty-five jurors had been is
sued, and all but two of them responded.
Major Clinton L. White, Judge-Advocate
of the brigade, represented the defendant,
and District Attorney Bruner conducted
the prosecution. Mr.. White wanted to try
the case before jury of eight, and there
being no objection on thepart of the prose
cution, the following were accepted: T. A.
Atwood, P. Nash, N. S. Bennett, Y.F.
Gum, G. D. Wingate F. McFadden, Aaron
Wilson and Warren Starr.
In opening the case, Mr.. Bruner ex-
planned to the jury the nature of the
charge-that of refusing to give up State
property when demand had been made
therefor. Mr.. White for the defense, adj
mitted that the property belonged to the
State; that it was of the value alleged in
the complaint; that the defendant had been
and still was in possession of the property,
and that he refused to surrender it upon
demand.
Colonel Guthrie, Commander of the regi-
ment, took the stand and described the
property as consisting of ranges, dishes,
cooking utensils, canvas, saddles, brides
and other articles used by the regiment at
its summer encampment The defendant
had been, up to short time ago, Quarter
master of the regiment, and he was re-
sponsible for the sate-keeping and care of
The property.
The case for the prosecution then rested,
and the defendant was placed on the stand.
One OF the first questions asked by his at
torney was
why did you refuse to give up the prop
erty when demand was made for it?"
The defendent replied that he had been
advised the he had lien on it for storage.
Mr.. Bruner moved to strike out the an
swer, as not being responsive to the ques-
ton. The advice which the defendants
attorney might have given him would not
serve as the defendants answer to the
question.
Argument followed on the point and
Judge Henry ordered the Objectionable part
of the answer stricken out.
Mr.. White then asked the defendant if
he had received any compensation for keep
ing the stores.
Mr. Bruner objected again, and cited the
provisions of the law to the effect that a
lien could not be placed on property be-
longing to the State. Mr.. Rivett, he said,
knew the proper manner in which to pre-
sent his claim, but he had not done so, and
still refused to give up the property. Mr..
Bruner argued that the defendant should
have yielded to the demand upon its pres
entation, and claimed that serious state of
affairs would have resulted had riot &C.
Cured in this city, and the militia, being
called upon to suppress it, had been unable
to get their guns, ammunition, saddles and
nf orfT nln No IN fhnr1
selves for duty.
Mr.. White argued that the case was one
where intent would have to be shown, and
that Mr.. Rivett believed he had as perfect
right to hold the property, until paid for
his storage, as if it belonged to private in
dividual. He did not believe the State
ought to "bum' the storage, if private
citizen could not, and the question he con-
sidered proper one.
The Court sustained the objection, and
Mr.. White took an exception.
Mr.. Bruner consulted for moment with
Lieutenant Maydwell, of the Adjutant-
Generals office, by whom the charge was
sworn to, and then agreed that the defend
ant could answer any of the questions
which had been asked by his attorney, but
to which objections had been made and
sustained.
Mr.. Rivett then stated that although no
contract had been made and nothing agreed
upon about payment for the storage, he
had taken the property to his warehouse
and kept it there expecting to put in bill
at the expiration of his term. He had not
put it in sooner because he thought the
storage might stop if he did. He has kept
the articles about two years and half, and
his bill was at the rate of about 81 per
month. which he considered reasonable.
He kept other property on storage for
which he charged twenty-five cents per
month to each party.
Mr.. Bruner asked the defendant if it was
not his duty, as Quartermaster, to take
care of the property and keep 1t IN order,
and whether or not he did not take 1t TO
his warehouse of his own accord and with
out orders.
Mr.. Rivett replied that he did. but no
one had ordered him to remove it from his
storehouse.
Mr.. Bruner then asked "Why did you
not, when you had a disagreement some
weeks ago. in which you had to refund
$50 to the regiment, present your bill for
storage if you intended then to charge fol-
the keeping of the property"
The defendant answered that he did not
think of it then.
Colonel Guthrie testified that Just before
breaking camp last year he ordered Quar-
termaster Riyett to have everything shipped
to the Armory and stored there, but that
his order was not obeyed, and the goods
were again taken to Mr.. Rivett's home.
He met the defendant sfterward, and asked
him why his orders had been disobeyed,
and was told that he (Rivett) could more
easily take care of the property if he kept it
at his store-house, and that it would not
cost the regiment anything. This was
thought to be good enough arrangement,
and the property was left at Rivett's place.
After Colonel Guthrie's testimony was
concluded recess was taken till 1:30 P. NJ.
After recess Assistant District Attorney
A. ]. Bruner made the opening argument
for the prosecution, and was followed by
Mr.. White for the defense. The latter
found fault with the law, If it provided that
the State had any more rights than private
individuals, and also claimed that a civil
action against Rivett would have been
more proper than the criminal prosecution
which had been instituted by the military
authorities.
District Attorney Elwood Bruner made the
closing argument for the prosecution. Heidi
not 90 into the details, he said, because the
case was too plain. The Legislature had
added special sections to the Penal Code
providing that nobody had right to with
hold militia property under any considera-
ton. and any person doing so was guilty of
misdemeanor.
Justice Henry's instructions to the jury
were very brief and pointed. He said the
only question left for the jury to decide,
under the law in the matter. was whether
or not Rivett's possession of the property
was unlawful.
The jury, after considerable deliberation,
rendered a verdict of guilty.
Justice Henry will to-day determine what
Mr.. Rivett's punishment shall be. The
general impression is that nominal hne
only will be imposed. as the chief purpose
of the regimental officers was to have jul
diciallv established the fact of their right
to demand property of the regiment by
whomsoever it may be held.
MYERS LOTS.