The record-union., 1891-02-19
AMELIE GEHRING ACQUITTED.
The Jury Finally Agrees After Five
Hours Deliberation.
The Question of Intent Was Raised,
and the Maid Given the Benefit
of the Doubt.

yesterday.
1t was the fifth and last day of the trial
of Amelie Gehring, Mrs. Gillig's maid,
for larceny. AS soon as the court con-
vened Clinton White, one of Miss Geh-
rings attorneys, began his closing argu-
ment for the defense. Mr.. White con-
sumed the entire forenoon session. AT
imes he grew eloquent, and then, in
urn, abusive to the Gilligs and Crockers.
First he drew picture of the sad father,
mother, brothers and sisters in far-off
Germany, who wept and prayed for the
safety of their loved one thousands of
miles from home, among strangers and
foreigners,
During this portion of Mr.. Whites ar
gument Miss Gehring wept quietly.
The attorney characterized the prosecu-
ton as a ''base conspiracy to send an
innocent and good girl to the penitenti-
ary." He declared that it was Mrs. Gil
ligs wish to wreck the girls life just to
crafty her desire for revenge.
THE OTHER SIDE.
In the afternoon Charles 7. Jones closed
the case for the prosecution. Mr.. Jones
scoffed ut the idea that there was any per-
secution in the case. Mrs. Gillig had ap-
peared in court to testify, Just the same
to do, when summoned by the laws of
the country.
Referring to the testimony given in the
case, Mr.. Jones called attention to the
testimony of Miss Gehring, that she had
told Mrs. Gillig prior TO the discovery"
that she intended to leave her employ.
This, he declared, was absurd If the
girl intended to leave and was honest,
why did she not return all the jewelry
and articles belonging to Mrs. Gillig that
she had in her trunk. The attorney
summed up the situation as follows: The
girl had been stealing all along, and,
when she found that her trunk would
hold no more, she concluded to get away
with the booty.
''Mr. White in his argument for the de-
Tense made cowardly attack upon Mrs.
Gillig" continued Mr. Jones' "He was
insinuating, insulting, and his conduct
was unprotessional. He asked you, gen
tlemen of the jury, why she took such an
interest in the caSe-why she sat here in
the Courtroom beside me, when [ was
cross-eXamining the defendant. But if
Mrs. Gillig had not been here-if she had
gone away Immediately after giving her
testimony-Mr. White would have ranted
about, and declared that she was afraid,
that she was too cowardly to sit here in
court and face the girl she accused of
theft. No, gentlemen, Mrs. Gillig knows
she is right, and with that knowledge she
demonstrate that she is not the con-
spirator, the perjurer, that Mr.. White and
his client would have you believe she is"
In conclusion, Mr.. Jones said that all
he asked from the jury was justice for
both sides-justice for Mrs. Gillig as well
as for the maid. He warned them not to
allow sentiment or sympathy to swerve
them, and bring in verdict under the
evidence.
CHARGING THE JURY.
Judge Davis delivered his charge to the
jury when Mr.. Jones had finished his ar
gument at o'clock. The Judge occupied
about half an hour, and his instructions
to the jury was most explicit. He eau
toned the jurors to weigh the evidence
and not decide upon verdict until they
were thoroughly agreed. The future life
of the defendant depended upon their de-
Hberations, and too much care could not
be taken. But the age, sex and circum-
stances of the defendant should not, he
said, be considered in the jury-room. 1.-The
jury should avoid allowing any SYM
pathy to affect it, continued the Judge,
land you must not bring in any partic-
ular verdict simply because you believe
it will meet with popular favor, or be in
dorsed by public opinion. If YOU do, you
viii be violating your oaths. The finan-
cial condition of the defendant or those
interested in the prosecution, must make
no difference to YOU"
L iS q IuSO tllcll 1tJCGuy dllu llS
different degrees. Continuing, he said
that when property was taken from one
trunk and placed in another in the same
house with intent to steal it was larceny.
The possession of such property may
ONLY BE MoMENTARY
TO constitute larceny, provided there is
intent to steal it. The fact that thief
gives back the property he or she has
stolen does not cleanse him or her
of larceny. In the present case he
said, the defendant took the witness stand
in her own behalf. When a defendant
does this the jury must take into consid-
Grafton his or her relation to the case, and
it should be borne in mind that the de-
fendant had much at stake. 1t was not to
be understood that the defendant should
be wholly mistrusted merely because he
or she is the defendant.
Miss Gehring was only on trial for
stealing a dimond ring, pair of earrings,
'snake' ring, some pieces of lace, and
some handkerchiefS. Many other arti-
cles were introduced in evidence but un-
less the jury found that the articles named
in the Indictment were stolen-even if it
should appear that the other articles were
Stolen-they must acquit. Again, il ap-
peared in the complaint of Mrs. Gillig
that the snake" ring had been stolen.
The evidence showed that this ring be-
longed to Mr.. Gillig, and not to his wife,
and consequently the jury could not con-
vict the defendant for stealing that ring.
Regarding the diamond ring the court
said that if the jury found that it had been
stolen from Mrs. Gillig while they were
in London, and that it had not been stolen
in Sacramento County, they could not
convict on that score.
IN THE JURY'S HANDS.
When the Judge had finished, Sheriff
Stanley and Deputy Fay We're sworn to
take charge of the jury, and the twelve
men filed out of the room. As was an
ticipated, they did not return with a ver-
dict right away On the contrary. it soon
became evident that there would be dis
agreement, or else an agreement would
not be reached for many hours.
At $3.50 o'clock Judge Davis returned to
the Courthouse and sent for the Jury.
The disheveled and troubled appear
ance of the jurors as they came into the
room, indicated that they were still at
loggerheads, and had been indulging in
some heated arguments.
"Gentlemen, have you agreed upon a
yerdIct?" asked Judge Davis.
we have not" replied Foreman John
f. Cross.
Wei, have you anything to communi-
cate to the Court?"
'.Yes, sir; we are in doubt as to the ex-
act definition of larceny,'' said Mr.. Cross.
1--WE would like to have the court read us
that portion of his instructions again.
which refers to larceny"
The Judge looked over his notes, and
then suggested that it would be better to
read all of the instructions again. The
jurors thought so, too, and the Judge pro-
ceeded to read.
THE MAID ACQUITTED.
1t was 10:15 o'clock when the jury re-
tired to deliberate again.
About twenty minutes later the Sheriff
notified the court that the jury was ready
to report.
The attorneys took their accustomed
seats and the lobby soon filled nm with