Los Angeles herald., 1892-02-21
GIBBS SENTENCED.
The Ex-COuncilman to Spend
Seven Years in Folsom.
He Gets a Terrible Scoring
From Judge Smith.
His Transactions Pronounced Worse
Than the Rankest Rascality.
A Land Deal That the Court Holds Was
Worse Than a Bunco Game of the
First Water-The Judges Re-
marks in Passing Sentence.

Yesterday x-Councilman E. A. Gibbs
OF the east side. who was found guilty
of false pretense in the suit brought at
the instance of ]. H. Anderson, came up
before Judge Smith of the superior
court for sentence. motion was made
for new trial and argued by M. E. G.
Munday and Mr.. Binford and E. q.
Stephens, and per contra by Assistant
District Attorney McComas. Late in
the afternoon the counsel rested, and
after few moments reflection, Judge
Smith said:
There are great many points here,
and it is not worth while to consider
them all, because it does not make much
difference what we may say or think,
possibly.
On the first proposition, that the evil
dence is not sufficient to warrant the
verdict, it is very seldom that courts in
terfere in that regard. The
jury had right to believe
Anderson as against the other witness,
and under all the circumstances proven
in the case it seems that they took that
view of it, and, if go, the court cannot in
terfere in these matters, unless it should
be something go strikingly and shock
ingly against Justice or right that it
should not be permitted to stand.
The instructions are quite full in favor
of the defendant, and l am inclined to
think when you look them over you will
find them stating the case very broadly
for him. Possibly there may be errors
in some of those instructions, but in a
case of this kind there are
propositions about as difficult,
and it presents as many diff
culties as any other case that can
come before court. 1t embodies many
propositions, all surrounded with their
peculiar and particular difficulties, as
you can gather at once from those prop
ositions that have been urged before
the court this afternoon. The defend
ant was ably represented here, and the
case was tried at great length, with
plenty of time and opportunity, and the
jury seemed to dispose OF it very quickly.
Evidently they gathered from the
testimony the fact that this defendant
had disposed of this note and a mort
gage, knowing that it actually repre-
sented no value, to party for this liv-
cry stock, and the evidence would seem
to warrant it.
The gist of the crime and of the
whole matter was and is that the de-
fendant passed this note and mortgage
as genuine and true, representing them
at par value when he knew that they
were worthless. That is all there is of
the case, and the balance could be
eliminated. I have no doubt that is the
view the jury took of it. The fact that
the defendant bought an interest in the
land from Juan Porro for nominal con-
sideration, that he had brought suit
with others against 400 defendants, that
he had been defeated in the action, that
he knew it, and that afterwards after
the Judgment of the court that he con-
veyed particular section out of that
ranch, which he had selected, and con-
veyed it for nominal consideration to
this man Mckay and took a mortgage
back in four separate mortgages upon
tine four quarters of the section. as being
the foundation for three general notes
on each one of those mortgages, and
then this man Donald Mckay
going on the stand and
swearing that he was never on the land,
never had seen it, knew nothing about
it, that he had not received the deed,
he had not put it upon record, and, in
short, he had nothing to do with the
transaction, was simply showing by his
testimony that the whole business was
concocted by Mr.. Gibbs and carried on
and perfected and put into shape, and
that he then used these notes and mort
cages for the purpose OF getting prop
erty. Now that is the plain, terse
proposition that was presented to the
Jury, and have no doubt that it is the
view they took of it. / don't see how
they could take any other view. These
facts stand out as plainly and distinctly
as anything can; the transaction is a
base one, whatever may have been the
belief of the man. Any man in his
senses ought to know that under these
circumstances he was trading off moth
ing for something. These notes and
mortgages were worse than nothing.
He had received the judgment of the
superior court. This is a question OF in
tention. 1t is question of good faith
on his part. Consider a man that had
bought the title for nominal considera-
ton, and had gone to all this expense
and trouble in vindicating his title, and
the court had found against him on ev-
cry proposition, declaring that he had
no interest in the land, he, alter that
conveying this land and taking mort
cages back, and then passing those off
at par value, representing them to be
good. Consider that proposition! 1t
strikes me that no sane man could un-
derstand that in any other light than
that OF the rankest kind of rascality-
the very rankeEt kind. 1t won't do.
Whatever may be the peculiarities sur
rounding a case of this kind, and; of
course, as lawyers we know that
there are many hard casea To try vet