Los Angeles herald., 1890-11-19

DeIOTe you. luelr arguments you are 10
consider, but not their statements of
fact as conclusive upon you. You have
been present during the trial of this
cause; you have heard the testimony;
and wherever their statements of what
the testimony was, conflict with your
recollections of that testimony, your rec
objection will govern your action, and,
subject to the instruction which shall
finally give you, justify any verdict that
you might see proper to base upon that,
provided the verdict would be consistent
with the evidence as you recollect it.
1.-THE rule is that when witness has
sworn falsely in one part of his or her
testimony, it is to be disregarded In all
other respects and, if there is any wit
ness who has sworn before you to any
fact, and you believe you are satisfied
from the evidence that he has sworn
falsely in one respect, you may disre-
gard his testimony entirely.
"Now, the single fact which seems to
be in dispute before you is this: Did
the defendant present that claim to the
county treasurer; did he present it
knowing it to be fraudulent? 1t is i'm
material, for the purposes OF this case,
for you to determine whether or not
that document was originally properly
drawn drawn regularly passed through
the regular course that is prescribed by
the statute, if you believe it was fraud
ulent, and was good upon its face-ap-
peared to be good-and was, with the
knowledge of the defendant, by him or
his immediate agency presented to the
county treasurer. That is all you have
to inquire into. And as to that fact,
the essential fact that is involved in this
case, there is absolutely no testimony,
no evidence that the jury has any right
to consider as tending to prove the ulti-
mate facts, and for that reason, you are
instructed that the only verdict that you
| could render in this case would be YER
dict of acquittal. Swear the bailiff to
take charge of the jury, Mri Clerk"
AT noon the jury withdrew; at 3 80
they returned in court, and one of them
asked If they were to understand from
that charge that in order to convict
there must be evidence of absolute pre-
sentation of the warrant on the part of
the defendant.
q. The court: There must be evidence
OF the presentation by himself or by
someone who acted Immediately as his
agent. and for him in the matter.
A juror: There is another question,
whether the statute don't distinctly
state that he must do it himself In
this charge it says "or cause to be
DONE" but the statute don't say
cause"
The court: 1t does not. The statute
does not say cause" and the "or cause"
is entirely superfuous in the infor-
nation, and does not increase the force
of the crime that is charged against
him, that of presenting.
Mr.. Hardesty: will ask, your honor,
in connection with the first question
that was asked you, to give this instruc-
ton: 'Or if the defendant aids, coun-
sells, assists or procures it to be pre-
sented, that he is principal"
Mr.. White: There is no evidence
The court: l shall give no such in
struction as that, because there is no
evidence upon which to base it; the in
structions upon that question would be
good sound law, abstractly speaking,
but there being no evidence upon which
to base such instructions, the request is
refused. Is that all, gentlemen?
Alter some OF the courts instructions
had been re-read, at the request of a
juror. the court directed the jury to de-
liberate little longer.
Mr.. Gage: We would like the court to
instruct them that there is no evidence
at all in this case that Henry Edelman
caused that warrant, or any other war
rant, to be presented to the county
treasurer.
The court: l will decline to give that
instruction, because it is utterly imma-
terial. The charge that he caused it to
be presented is utterly immaterial to the
information and, consequently, any
instructions upon that would be ut
terly immaterial.
The jury now withdrew for the last
time, more fuddled than ever, and hav-
ing no written instructions at all to
guide them. That they intended to dis
regard the command of the court to
acquit was self-evident, and had been all
along. At O'Clock they filed into court
with determined faces, and the foreman
announced that it was useless to keep
them together any longer, as an agree
ment would never be reached. Conse-
quently they were discharged. At that
time they stood seven for conviction and
five for acquittal.
This is probably the greatest snub ever
received by a superior judge in this
county, and shows how much the people
are getting tired of tomfooling technical
tiles. Nothing was said about defendant
renewing his bond, nor was the case
placed on the trial calendar to be reset.