The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1892-03-26
SMITH OUT ON BAIL.
Inc Slayer of Patrick Bla;lEiiggaa
Profits by Habeas Corpus.
Judge Van Fleet Says the Evidence In
dicates Justifiable Homicide-A
$4,000 Bond Given.

v
Big Neck Smith, who killed Patrick
Brannigan on the Sth inst. were resumed
before Superior Judge Van Fleet yester-
day afternoon.
Charles t. Jones. Smiths attorney, an
nounced that he desired to withdraw
uiat portion of the petition asking for the
absolute discharge Of Smith, and would
rely solely upon the question Of admit
ing his client to bail. 81 now ask the
gentlemen on the other side" he said,
Il they deny his right to admission to
bail"
Lincoln White, special counsel for the
prosecution, said he did deny the right.
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY CONSENTS.
Addressing Deputy District Attorney
Buckley Judge Van Fleet said: ''MIr.
District Attorney, do you contend that
the petitioner is not entitled to be admit
ted to bail?D
No / do not" replied Mr. Buckley.
think, in view of the conflicting tes
nmony and the showing of self-defense,
Chat 1T is a bailable case. ] make that
Attorney Ryan"
Attorney White insisted that the court
should not interfere at this time. The
committing magistrate, Police Judge
Cravens, had held Smith on the charge of
murder, without bail That official had
had an opportunity to see the various
witnesses on the stand and to note their
demeanor. Judge Van Fleet had sim
ply heard the testimony read from cold
print, and could not well pass upon the
credibility of the witnesses. Mr.. White
then proceeded to read from the testi-
mony taken at the preliminary eXamina-
alton the evidence of various witnesses
who, he said had contradicted them
selves and each other. He also read eX-
tensiyely from the evidence of Charles
Earren, who testified that he did not
think, from Brannigan's actions, that
there was going TO be any trouble.
The matter was finally submitted to
Judge Van Fleet for decision.
THE COURTS REMARKS.
SIN view OF the action of the petitioner
in Withdrawing his application for dis
charge on this writ" said the Judge lit
becomes unnecessary to pass upon the
question whether there was reasonable or
probable cause for the committing magis-
trate TO hold the defendant, and it may
be assumed therefore that the evidence is
entirely sufficient for that purpose, and
that the action Of the committing magis-
trate was proper in holding that this
was case calling for the determination
OF petit jury. AS l suggested yester-
day, under such circumstances, l would
not entertain the idea of discharging q
man from custody. But obviously, I'M
der the statement of the evidence that
has been presented here, the defendant is
entitled, as a matter Of right. to be adj
mitted to bail. The Constitution of the
State guarantees to persons charged
with crime the absolute right to bail
in all cases except those where
the oftense charged is punishable by
death, and, in the language of the Con-
stitution, the guilt is evident or the pre-
ton of guilt. Certainly under this evil
dence, taking the evidence Of the prose-
cution alone, and it appears to me that it
would arouse in the mind of any man Il
reasonable doubt of the guilt Of the de-
PENDANT of the crime of murder for which
he has been held. And taken in conjunc-
ton with the evidence on the part of the
defense, there arises a grave presumption
that under all the circumstances the de-
1endant would be justified.
"Of course" continued the court, ST
am simply commenting on the evidence
as it has been stated and presented here.
" hat it might appear on trial before a
jury is another thing, but the Constitu-
ton and the laws made in conformity
Herewith have in view the showing that
will be made upon the presentation of the
witnesses before the court and of course
it contemplateS the consideration of such
evidence only upon this hearing as was
taken at the preliminary hearing. Evil
IDENTIFY the = law contemplateS that there
may be and will arise instances under
which committing magistrates
WILL HOLD DEFENDANTS WITHOUT BAIL,
In instances where the circumstances do
not warrant them, because it is provided
that application through the medium of
WIFI OF habeaS corpus may be made for
admission to bail in such instances. Now
the evidence here, taking it as it is pre-
Sented to my mind in its very strongest
phase, shows this state of facts: The de-
: ceased and defendant had been acquaint-
ances and friends Tor number of years;
they voted and resided and had their
donniciles in the city of Sacramento. One
was living in the southeastern part of the
city, or in the southern central part of the
CITY, and voted IN precinct mile and a
lalf or two mileS-fally mile and a half
from the precinct where the defendant
voted. The defendant lived in the central
western part of the city, down in the
lower part OF town, and on this day Of
the election lie was IN his own proper
precinct, where he had resided for a num-
her Of wears. During the dav, prior to
the rencounter, the deceased came into
that precinct, and during a conversation
hold with the defendant and several
others the deceased made violent threats
against the Chief Of Police, and threat
oned to do him harm, and the defendant
jnterposod and made some suggestions
-
thereupon deceased said some unpleas-
ant things OF defendant and called him
some vile names. The defendant either
slapped him in the face or pushed him
away. the evidence does not clearly dis
close which: but certainly taking il in its
strongest phase, the first meeting of
the parties on the day of the homi-
Ciae there was nothing which would
hive justified either in killing the other.
The deceased, it appears, was under the
influence of liquor, and the testimony
shows that the slapping or pushing him
away by the defendant at that time
angered him very intensely. He went
away from the polling place and threat
oaed to put the defendant in the Morgue,
or to put him in box, before night; he
threatened that he would kill him. lie
,1gas taken away almost forcibly by his
friends. He said he would arm himself,
End he did 90 home, distance OF mile
or a mile and q half, as the evidence
shows, and armed himself not only with
one weapon, but with two. He placed
them in his pockets, in the most conven-
lent situation for use. He came back 10
the point from whence he departed, where
the Iirst difficulty occurred, and then dis
tinctly threatened. in the presence of
several persons, that he
WOULD HAVE THE LIFE
OF the defendant and that he was looking
for him-that he was hunting for him for
that purpose. 1t appears that the defend
ant had retired from the place. There is
no evidence to show that he returned un-
til about the hour of the closing of the
polls. But he came back there where he
had a right to be, in his own voting pre-
ciuct and under circumstances that would
instify him in believing that the deceased
had gone home and was not there. He
came back and came upon the deceased
Unexpectedly, and the deceased immedi-