Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-02-11


Mr.. Jones objected to it, as it would cut nc
figure in the case and was not proper test.
! mony. Mr.. johnson insisted that Kelly
should tell what he knew IF he did say
what Cone, Harvey and my son say he
| die, said Mr.. Johnson, "he is not doing
his duty as citizen to the people, to him.
self, or to his God, in refusing to tell il
now"
District Attorney Bruner rose at this
point and said he saw no reason why Cone
or others should be brought into Court to
testify IN an immaterial matter MIR
Kelly has denied that he told them any
thing" said Mr.. Bruner, land that ought
to end it. l am willing to believe him
The law does not permit Mr.. Johnson to
contradict or eross-examine his own wit,
ness"
Nh. JOHNSON GETS MAD.
Mr.. johnson arose pale and mad. He
felt that Mr.. Burners remarks, in reference
to taking Kelly's word, was q reflection on
Hiram Johnson's yeracity, and he init
mated that Mr. Bruner was 10 gentleman
for making such an assertion. MY son
always speaks the truth" said Mr.. John
son, land l will resent any insinuations TO
the contrary"
Mr.. Bruner said he had right to believe
what he saw fit, aud Mr.. Johnson reiterated
that if Mr.. Bruner doubted his sons word
he was no gentleman.
Matters were beginning to look serious,
when attorney Jones interfered, and in
duced the two lawyers 10 remain calm.
Hiram Johnson then arrived, and his
father offered to prove by him that Kelly
had not told the truth.
The Court would not permit the testi-
mony, however.
The trouble between Mr. Bruner and Mr..
Johnson broke out afresh then, and Hiram
Johnson wanted to talk.
Judge Buckley poured oil on the troubled
waters this time, and in short time every
thing was running smoothly again.
The defense rested, and the prosecution
offered some testimony in rebuttal.
Mr.. Brissell, the gentleman who stopped
Chalman on the night of the killing, said
he did not see the two Swedes who testified
last week that they were at the scene of the
killing
Several other witnesses were called for
the purpose of showing that the deceased
and Mrs. Orr went out walking together,
and did not meet on the corner, but on
Mr.. Johnson's objection none of the tes-
timony was admitted.
The last witness called was z W. Smith,
young man who works for Wells, Fargo
d Co. He was told to stand up, SO that all
might see him. He was very tall, broad
shouldered and wore a light overcoat
black stiff hat and light mustache. He
testified that shortly before the shooting he
walked up ] street and turned up Ninth on
his way home. He was wearing his light
oyercoat at the time.
The object OF producing this witness was
to show that Mr.. Clancy, Mrs. McMasters
and MIS-. Colgrove might have been mis-
taken in regard to seeing Shook alone on
Ninth street on that eventful night.
THE ARGUMENT.
The prosecution then submitted its case,
and Mr.. Jones announced that they were
willing to submit without argument
Mr.. Johnson, however, after thinking
the matter over for some time, said he
thought the case should be argued, SO it
was agreed.
City Attorney Church spoke briefly for
the prosecution, and was followed by Dis
trict Attorney Bruner, who went further
into the details.
Mr.. Johnson then made lengthy and
eloquent appeal for the discharge of Chal-
man. 1t was $50 o'clock when the attor-
ney concluded, SO another recess was taken
until 7:30 o'clock.
When the Court..reconvened in the even
ing, Attorney Charles T. Jones made the
closing argument for the prosecution. The
gentleman went over the testimony thor
oughly, and maintained that it pointed
conclusively to cold-blooded murder
At the conclusion of Mr.. Jones argument
the case was submitted.
A hush came over the large audience
and all eyes were turned inquisitively upon
Judge Buckley. A pin could have been
heard to drop when he commenced to
speak.
THE COURTS RULING.
"The defendant in this case" began his
Honor impressively, sis charged with
having feloniously and with malice afore-
thought murdered a man-one Edward
Shook. The defendant interposes plea of
self-defense. There is but little difference
between the counsel as to the law of this
case, and counsel have very fully reviewed
the testimony on both sides; and it would
be almost 8 waste Of time for me to give my
views at length. But it seems 10 me that the
salient points are as follows: The defend
ant and Miss Wheelan were acquainted
and that acquaintance resulted in an
arrangement. She had encouraged him
in his attentions in the way OF receiving
small presents-a watch, q photograph and
letters-from him. They made arrange
ments to meet at the Plaza, and talk the
matter over. 1 think from the testimony
that she had purpose in view and that
she acquainted her purpose to Mrs. Orr,
and possibly to the deceased-or Mrs. Orr
may have acquainted the deceased. How
ever, in the pursuance of that purpose Miss
Wheelan and Chalman met at the Plaza,
and Mrs. Orr and the deceased were close
by; and the deceased assaulted the defend
ant. do not think it was intended that it
should be more than whipping.
THE defendant having been threatened
with punishment or death, believed that
such would be the result of his meeting
with Miss Wheelan. Being in love with
the young lady, and DESTROYS of meeting
her, he armed himself as q matter of pre-
caution. He kept his appointment, and
met her, and after that while walking with
her, the deceased, Unexpectedly to the de-
PENDANT, violently assaulted him. In that
assault the defendant fred the fatal shot,
the result of which was the death of Mr..
Shook. In law and facts it was self-defense.
The law of the State of California and of
this country provides that man has the
right to defend his life and the lives of
his relatives in proper case, and it becomes
q question of fact whether he acts upon
such circumstances as would appear reason
able. The defendant being suddenly as
SaulteQ III LDdL U&HUeT DdQ TlSnl 10 Ue-
fend himself to reasonable extent. l do
not know how he could tell what was to
come next He had received two blows,
and he could not tell if he was to receive a
third blow, a shot from pistol or thrust
from a knife. He was attacked by man
larger physically and stronger than him
self. All the testimony shows that he en-
deavored to resist the assault by backing
fifteen or twenty feet. II he was assaulted
as he states, he had perfect right to de-
fend his life and person, even to the taking
of life. Under such circumstances no man
is required to wait.
MRS. oRR's TESTIMONY.
"Mrs. Orr's story" continued Judge
Buckley, II do not in the main believe.
l do not believe that anybody, outside Of
those interested in the prosecution Of this
case, believes her story. She is contra
dicted on material points by ten reputable
witness. If I were the prosecuting attor-
ney of this county would prosecute her
for perjury. l should do that in the inter
ests of Justice and humanity. Miss Whee-
lan's story 1 pay little attention to.
think Mrs. Orr's advice was to have this
defendant punished, and think that was
her only purpose for going to the Plaza that
night,