Los Angeles herald., 1891-04-10
AMONG THE COURTS.
PARElNs TELLS A GAUzY STORY
ABOUT THE CAR ROBBERY.
Cases Which We're in the Superior
Courts Yesterday.


Judge Smith and jury in department
one of the superior court yesterday
morning at 10 o'clock, when the court
rendered its decision upon the question
as to whether or not the confession OF
the defendant to Detective Len Harris
should be admitted in evidence, by sus-
tanning the obieetion of the defense.
Detective M. 7. Bowler OF the police
force, ). p. Hilton and w. j. Hamilton
were then called and examined on mat
ters Of minor Importance in connection
with the defendant, for the prosecution,
which then rested its case.
Special Officer A. II. Seekatz was then
called for the defense, and testified that
he found the stolen goods near Parkins'
house. He had, however, never seen
the defendant until he entered the court
room.
The defendant, H. F. Parkins, then
took the stand in his own behalf, and
testified to the effect that he was 40
years OF age, and had been married
nineteen years. He had seven children,
the eldest of whom was is years. of age.
He had lived at Tropico for over two
years past, and was proprietor of the
saloon known as the Three Mile House,
at that place.
About five months ago couple of
boys went to his saloon and offered to
sell him half keg of gin, which he pur-
Detective w. A. Bosqui, OF the police
force. of this occurrence, and Of
his suspicious concerning the mat
TWn nonnthc a. thu hnrc
Murphy and Wilson, went to him
and telling him that they had
lot of stuff they had stolen from rail-
road cars, asked him to purchase it or
dispose OF it for them. He agreed to
thelatter proposal and stated that he had
informed Bosqui of the whole matter.
He had also made arrangements with
Detectives Aubie and Bowler to run
down the thieves, Murphy and Wilson;
and had been sworn in as deputy sher-
iff in order to assist in their capture.
The witness closed by relating the cir
cumstances of his arrest and incarcera-
tion, and stated that the sheriff and his
deputies had continually piled him lib
orally with whisky to make him talk
while in Jail.
Detective w. A. Bosqui verified some
OF the defendants statements, and
William Crumb, and the defendants
daughter Mary, also corroborated him
on some points, whereupon the defense
closed its case. Assistant District
Attorney McComas opened the argu-
ment, and Mr.. Brooks addressed the
jury in his inimitable style, before court
adjourned for the day, so that it is prob
able that the matter will be entrusted
to the jury when court convenes at 10
O'Clock this morning.
THE SUPREME COURT.
At yesterdays session of the supreme
court; Chief Justice Beatty, and Justices
DeHaven, Garoutte, Harrison, ). Paterson
and Sharpstein. sitting in bank, the fol-
lowing business was transacted:
Upon motion of j. A. Swanwick and
presentation of license from the SUI
preme court of Texas, T. r.. Archer was
admitted to practice in all the courts of
this state.
Upon motion of Waldo M. York and
license from supreme court of Arkansas,
r. HI. Knight was admitted.
Upon motion of M. L. Graft and
license from Ohio, Theodore w. Broth
erton was admitted.
Upon motion OF the attorney general
the case of the People vs.. Ellsworth was
continued to the July term.
The case of the People VS.. Lopez was,
on motion Of the attorney general, sub
mitted on the briefs on file.
Upon stipulations the following cases
were ordered continued to the July
term;
People vs.. Mitchell.
People vs. Stewart.
People vs.. Ug Yuen, alias Lee Sui.
People vs.. Clark.
People VS.. Morgan.
Upon motion Of the attorney-gener
the following cases were continued to
the Sacramento term: People VS.. Win
ters, and People vs.. All Sim, while that
OF the People VS.. Freeman was con-
tinued to the same term upon stipula-
ton.
In the case OF the People vs.. Parker,
the respondent, on motion of the attor-
ney-general, was allowed ten days in
which to file his brief, the case there
upon to be submitted.
The case of the People vs.. johnson,
was argued and submitted by Mr.. Ho-
ran, for the appellant, and Attorney
General Hart for the respondent. This
is an appeal from the superior court of
San Francisco on technical point as to
whether or not the appellant should
have been convicted of embezzlement,
when the offense he committed was lar
ceny.
The court then adjourned until Mon
day next.