The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1892-02-26
ALLEGED FIRE-BUGS.
Sensational testimony Taken in the
Gait Arson Case.
The Confession of Dobson Introduced
in Evidence-Three Defendants
Turn states Evidence.

day.
The defendants in the case, according to
the original complaint, are George J..
Crabtree, John Taylor, alias "Larupin
jack" Peter Haller, George Johnson,
Henry Dobson 1t is
probable, though, if the case reaches the
Superior Court, that only Crabtree, Dob
son and Taylor viii be the defendants, as
the others have turned States evidence.
Half hundred witnesses were sub
penaed to testify in the case, and when
these arrived yesterday, and mingled
with the hundred or more curious indi-
viduals who were anxious 10 hear the
proceedings, it was apparent that the
Justices little courtroom would be en-
tirely inadequate to accommodate even
half Of the throng.
CHANGED QUARTERS.
It was ascertained that Superior Judge
Catlln was out of town, and that his
courtroom could be used, so Judge Henry
moved over into the big room where De-
partment One holds forth. But even tins
spacious apartment could not accommO-
date all who desired to hear the proceed
ings, and Deputy Sheriff and Constable
Brissel were kept busy trying to prevent
the spectators crowding in upon the at
torneys and defendants.
Crabtree, Dobson and Taylor occupied
seats together with their attorneys. lay
lor took matters coolly, but the other
two did not appear to relish the attention
that was bestowed upon them. Grove
l.. johnson and Hiram w. Johnson APP
peared as counsel for Crabtree and Dob
son; w. II. S. Scott and Jay Brown rep
resented Taylor, and District Attorney
Ryan and Elwood Bruner appeared for
the prosecution.
Little was done during the forenoon
session, the time being taken up by the
attorneys for the defense in arguments
for continuance.
Attorneys Scott and Brown said they
We're not ready to proceed, as they had
not had time to prepare their defense.
Grove l.. Johnson argued that this was
sufficient grounds for continuance, and,
beside, he objected to having the eXami-
nation proceed by piecemeal. Messrs.
Brown and Scott said they would submit
atlidavits to the effect they could not pro-
coed.
Justice Henry, however, thought they
had all had sufficient time for prepare
ton. great many witnesses were in
atteEdance-many of them from the
coEntry-and he ruled that the case
should proceed.
No CONTINUANCE ALLOWED.
Mr. Scott insisted that he should be
given time at least to prepare an affidavit,
but while he was talking District Attor-
ney Ryan called up the first witness for
the prosecution, J. K. McKinstry, and
placed him on the witness-stand.
1t was nearly noon and Attorney john
son argued that the usual lunch recess
should be taken before proceeding any
further.
But the District Attorneys object was
to get the examination under way and he
proceeded at once to PROFOUND questions
TO the witness.
the court ordered the District Attorney to
go ahead.
Mr.. Ryan asked the witness several
preliminary questions and then asked
him if he had owned property in Gait.
70 this Attorney Johnson objected ON
the ground that the District Attorney
was not proceeding in the proper way to
prove ownership.
4 lengthy legal tilt over the point fol-
lowed, and in the middle of it Mr.. John
son complained that it made him sick to
60 without his lunch, so a recess was
taken until 1870 o'clock
M'KINsTRY's TESTIMONY.
There was even larger throng in the
courtroom in the afternoon than preyi-
ously and much trouble was experienced
in keeping order There was quite a
sprinkling of ladies in attendance, too.
When the court reconvened in the after
noon Mckinstry resumed the Witness
stand.
Attorney Johnson wanted it understood
that when an objection was made by any
one of the attorneys the objection should
be recorded as being in behalf of all the
defendants.
MIR. Ryan had no objections to this
method and the case was proceeded with
Justice Henry overruled the objection
of Mr.. Johnson, made at the morning
session, regarding the ownership of Nc
kinstry's property. Then in answer to
questions by Mr.. Ryan, Mcl<instry said:
- owned a half interest in a livery stable
at Gait which was burned on Saturday
night, January ODD, of this year. The
Arcade Hotel, adjoining the stable, was
also burned. / do not know who owned
the hotel"
"In what building did the fire start?''
asked Mr.. Ryan.
$50 far as L know" said the witness,
cit started in the stable. | was asleep at
the time, when my family aroused me
and told me the stable was on fire.
dressed myself and ran out and found the
stable in flames. The fire had then spread
under the hotel" The witness said he con-
Sidered the stable worth about 5000. J..
w. Angraves, the wituoss' partner, usu-
ally slept in the stable.
Mr.. Johnson wanted the latter part of
the witness answer stricken out. He said
it was an important matter, so far as the
defendants were concerned, and unless
the witness knew positively whether or
not AngraYes slept there that night the
answer should be stricken out.
District Attorney Ryan said that the
answer would cut no figure as TO the de
gree of arson committed The degrees
were governed by the time when the
crime was eommitted-if at night it was
the first degree, and if in the daytime,
second degree.
Attorney Scott disputed this, saying
that the degrees of arson were deter
mined by the showing of whether or not
the building burned was an inhabited
one or not.
Justice Henry refused to strike out the
testimony.
ON cross-examination by Mr.. Johnson,
the witness said he never saw Angrayes
sleeping in the stable.
All of his testimony on this point was
then stricken out.
STATES EVIDENCE.
George Johnson was then called to the
witness stand.
Attorney Johnson asked ifthis witness
was one of the defendants named in the
complaint.
District Attorney Ryan said that such
was the case, and he asked the court to
dismiss the charge against Johnson, as
there was no evidence against him.
Lawyer Johnson then asked that the
court instruct the witness as to his legal
rights; that he was not bound to give
testimony that would tend to criminate
hlmseli, and that the dismissal was no
bar to future prosecution.
District Attorney Ryan thought that
Mr.. Johnson was taking an undue
interest IN the witness. If he had been
employed as the witness attorney it
would De all right. 1t was time enough
when questions were asked calling for
eliminating answers tn Instinct the wit