The record-union., 1891-02-08
is FORGOUS INSANE?
The Wfe-SIayer Says That He Can
Prove That He is.
Testimony That VIII Have to be Taken
in France-AttorneyJ johnson
Registers ssKick.''

shot and killed his wife several weeks
ago, says he is insane, and on that plea
he will seek to evade punishment.
Forgous' case was called in Superior
Judge Van Fleets Court yesterday.
Grove L. Johnson, the prisoners attor-
ney, asked for an extended postpone
ment of the trial, saying that it would be
necessary to send to France for certain
very material testimony, and it was de-
sired that the Court appoint commits
sion to secure this testimony. Mr.. John
son, in support of his request, then read
to the court an affidavit sworn toby
Forgous, the defendant.
This affidavit contained the first ink
ling Of what Forgous' defense is to be.
FoRGoUs' STATEMENT.
Over his own signature, and under
oath, Forgous declares that he will not be
ready for trial for some time yet, as he
wants to present the testimony of Dr.
Latieule, Mrs. Delphine Delfiou and Mr..
Laire, all of Cransac, Aveyron, France; Mr..
Nigue, OF Department Ia Grouse, France,
and various other persons, which testi-
mony will be very material to his de-
tense. The persons named, he says, knew
him when he resided near Cransac. and
They were familiar with the fact that, in
1881, he met with an accident by getting
caught in some machinery and having
his skull crushed. He did not regain
| consciousness for two months after this
injury. After his physical recovery, he
says, he was discharged from the mines
because his mind was affected and he was
insane. He remained in this condition
for several years. He says that Virginia
ForgouS, his cousin; Pierre Carries, his
uncle, and Marriane Forgous, and Rose
Carries, his aunts, can all testify that
HE WAS INSANE
After the accident referred to. He con-
tinued in this condition, he says, until
1887, when he began to improve He
then came to California, and the voyage
improved him greatly. He had never
fully recovered, however. and while at
times he seemed perfectly sane, there
were other times, since his arrival in this
country, when his memory became
blank and he did not know what he was
doing.
After reading the affidavit, Mr.. John
had encountered unusual difficulties
in getting the affidavit from his
client, owing to an interference
on the part of District Attorney Ryan.
He was surprised at Mr.. Ryan's actions.
Mr.. Johnson said he had sent his son,
Hiram w. johnson, to the County Jail to
consult with Forgous, but the Sheriff had
| refused to take the prisoner out of the
cell, and Hiram johnson was only al
lowed to converse with Forgous through
a small wicket and in the presence OF a
Deputy Sheriff. When asked why this
was done, young Mr.. johnson was in
formed that orders had been received
frem the District Attorney not to allow
Forgous to be taken from his cell
nJnNjV S.v ca
District Attorney Ryan denied posi-
lively that he had ever given any such
instructions to the Sheriff
Mr.. johnson said then that it was a
question of veracity between Mr.. Ryan
and the Sheriff, and he proposed to find
out about it.
The matter was dropped temporarily,
and Judge Van Fleet made an order
granting the request that commission
be appointed to take the testimony of the
witnesses mentioned in Forgous affi-
davlt. The trial OF Forgous was then
postponed until April next.
Later in the day attorney Johnson,
accompanied by his son, appeared before
Judge Van Fleet and renewed his re-
monstrance regarding the treatment he
had received at the Sheriff's office. He
called upon Deputy County Clerk Doody
to take the witness. stand, and that gem
tleman testified that he accompanied
Hiram Johnson to Forgous' cell when
the affidavit was taken. The Sheriff re-
fused to allow Forgous to be taken from
the cell, and said it was because Of orders
received from the District Attorney.
Hiram johnson gave testimony TO the
same effect.
District Attorney Ryan still insisted
that he had given no instructions to the
Sheriff. The Sheriff was sent for, but he
was out of town. Under Sheriff Bugbey
responded, however, and upon taking the
witness stand, stated that Forgous was not
kept in
CLOSE CONFINEMENT
Because of any instructions received from
the District Attorney. 1t was because of
a new rule adopted in the Sheriff's office,
to prevent escapes. Prisoners charged
with murder were being guarded with
particular vigilance.
At this point Judge Van Fleet wanted
to know what all this testimony had to
do with the court.
Mr.. johnson replied that he wished
the court to instruct the Sheriff to permit
counsel to consult with their clients
whenever necessary.
Judge Van Fleet said he had not the
power to issue such an order. He could
not interfere with the Sheriff's method of
guarding prisoners. That official was re-
sponsible for the prisoners in his charge,
and the court was not. The Judge added.
however, that he had no doubt but that
counsel could arrange the matter amicably
with the Sheriff outside of court.
why, certainly" added District At
torney Ryan, good-naturedly, there
won't be any trouble about that. Mr..
johnson was only after my scalp any
hn ri dr,ff Of