Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-05-21
WHO ARE TIE BLsCKHsILERS?
LAWYER ANDERsoN's EXPLANATION
OF sTILLI0N's ARREST.
Prosecuted for vagrancy Because he
Would Not Put Up Some of
His Store of Ducats.

Yesterday was the time fixed for the SEN
tence of Leon Stillion, the Frenchman,
who was convicted of vagrancy in the Po-
lice Court several days ago. The defend
ant was asked if he had anything 10 say
why judgment should not be pronounced,
and his attorney, W. A. Anderson, arose
and asked for new trial on the ground
that the defendant had been denied his
constitutional rights by the Court having
refused to grant him trial by jury, and
that the evidence was entirely insufficient
to warrant the verdict.
Mr.. Anderson then argued in support of
his motion in one of the most forcible APP
peals be ever made to Court He held
that person on trial for vagrancy was en-
titled to jury trial, and cited authorities
in support of the proposition.
As to the verdict, Mr.. Anderson thought
it was very unfair. He did not believe
Judge should render a verdict on general
principles, as he considered Judge Buckley
had done. The Court should not be infiu-
enced by expressions of the press or indi-
accordance with the testimony introduced.
He believed this case was more Than a
prosecution-it was persecution.
This man" said the attorney, "is
wealthy. He has money, and [ tell you
it's because he has money and won't dis
tribute it that he is prosecuted, or rather
prosecuted. | can prove that what l have
asserted is fact. If he had been a poor
man l have no doubt but that he would
not have been molested, but he has wealth,
and for the simple reason that he won't
part with it he was arrested. Now, l ask
if this is fair ~
The attorney then went on to say that he
considered the ruling of the Court, in az
hitting portions of the evidence for the
prosecution, was wrong. He also believed
that Judge Buckley, if asked his private
opinion on the street as to whether or nota
defendant in a vagrancy case should be
given jury trial, would say that he
should
Attorney Charles T. Jones. for the prose-
cution, said he had never in his life seen
Major Anderson more in earnest, and he
thought there must be quite as much in
terest manifested on the part of the defense
as by the prosecution. He believed that
Judge Buckley had done exactly right in
refusing the defendant jury trial, and for
several years he Jones' had commended
that in vagrancy cases there should be no
trial by jury. Vagrancy was not exactly a
crime. Nobody was particularly injured
by another's being vagrant, but the real
issue in such cases was the question as to
whether or not such person was detri-
ment to society, and Judge could better
pass on that point than jury. He con-
sidered Judge Buckeyes ruling proper in
every particular, and the verdict in accord
ance with the evidence. He did not be.
lieve in idle Boosting without proof, and
thought Major Anderson's remarks quite
insulting to the Court, particularly the one
in which he insinuated that the verdict was
rendered on general principles.
City Attorney Hart wanted to know if
Mr.. Anderson's remarks were intended to
cast any reflection On himself, or on the
Court, but was promptly told by Mr.. An
derson that the Court officials were not in
cluded, and that he (the defendants at
torney) did not mean any such thing. He
did not believe there was dishonest hair
in Judge Buckley's head.
After the attorneys had concluded their
arguments, Judge Buckley stated that here
after he would refuse jury trial in all
vagrancy cases. Two prominent Superior
judges of the State had decided that this
was the proper course, and he proposed to
bow in Difference to their opinions. As to
his being influenced by newspaper criti-
cisms, he said that he did not believe that
there had been any comment made in the
case until after he had rendered his decis-
ion. He did not see any good ground for
granting new trial and denied the motion
therefor.
Stillion was then sentenced to the County
Jail for period of ninety days.
Major Anderson then asked that the
Court fix a sum for a cash deposit, that the
defendant might be released on bail.
Judge Buckley said he didn't know
whether to do this or not. He had some
hesitation at releasing the defendant at all.
Mr.. Anderson said he didn't understand
this. He thought he had been restricted
enough during the trial, without having
another obstacle thrown in the way. He
begged the Court not to keep the defendant
in Jail, claiming that if this were done he
would almost be shut out from getting any
appeal.
After some further discussion, the de-
PENDANT was allowed to 60 upon furnishing
q $500 deposit