Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1891-01-01
EEALEY'S CREaATORY.
BE SAYS IT is NOT WHAT PERSONS
HAVE PAINTED IT.
Judge Armstrong Denies His Motion to
Quash the Indictment Grand
Juror Rider Examined.

In Judge Armstrong; Court yesterday a
motion was made by c. n. Post and Lin
coin White, attorneys for Daniel Healey,
to quash the Indictment fouud by the late
Grand Jury against the latter, who is
charged with misdemeapor in maintaining
a nuisance just outside the city limits.
The specifications in the Indictment al
lege that in May, 1890. Healey pat the car
cases of dead animals, to wit, the carcasses
of dogs and other offa1, upon the borders
of certain stream, to wit, q slough, which
said stream runs il westerly direction
near north B street and Twentieth street of
the City of Sacramento, from which stream
water is drawn for the supply of the in
habitants Of the city. Said carcass were
so placed on the borders of said stream by
said Daniel Healey that the drainage there.
from was taken up by said stream which
empties into the Sacramento river q short
distance above the supply pipe of the
Water Works of the city.
Heaiey leases quite large tract Of ground
in the locality described, where he con.
Quoted what is commonly known as 'the
bOhN-t u u pldO- WLctc i1lS tdEcGsS6S
OF horses, hogs, etc, are disposed of. He
claims that these carcasses are properly re-
duced, the fat boiled out, certain portions
OF the refuse sold TO glue manufacturers,
the bones to a San Francisco fertiizing
company, and what remains of the cooked
| flesh consumed by swine and dogs kept for
| that purpose. The place is clean. and the
air las sweet and healthy as the breath OF
babe"
He denies that carcasses are buried by
him on the premises or that the water OF
the American river, even during freshet,,
sweeps ofal from his place into the Sacra-
mento river to contaminete the water sup
ply of this city.
The Grand Jurors, however, visited the
place and the indictment was the result.
1t seems that John Rider, who is g
neighbor of Healey's, was member of that
Grand Jury, and Healey based bis applica.
ton TO have the indictment ouashed on
the ground, as alleged, that Rider was not q
competent person to sit on the jury when
his case was before that body, because
Rider was prejudiced against him prior
to the action taken by the Jury.
Mr.. Rider wss called to the witness.
stand and examined at considerable length
by MIR. Post. The witness denied that be
knew Mr.. Healey, or that he entertained
any prejudice against MIN. lie SAID he
had shifted foul odors at his home adioin.
ing the Healey place and was satisfied they
had come from the latter He admitted
having conversed with his sons on the sub.
ject prior to his sitting On the Grand jury
but claimed that even now he felt himself
perfectly competent to sit on Jury trying
the case, and could render an impartial
verdict on the evidence.
The defense did not call any other wit.
nesses. Arguments were made by Mr.
Post in support of the motion to quash
the indictment and by Assistant District
Attorney A. j. Bruner in opposition
thereto.
Judge Armstrong said that Mr.. Rider
had often been juror in his Court, and be
(the Judge had noticed that he had in.
variably proved very impartial one. He
did not think it had been shown that Mr.
| Rider was governed by prejudice in his
| action in the case of Healey. Even if the
| indictment was quashsd, the District Attor.
ney could doubtless renew the complaint
| by fling an information, or the matter
| could be taken up by the Grand Jury thai
| would soon be called AT all events, thu
| motion would be denied.
Healey then pleaded not guilty to the in
dictment