The record-union., 1893-05-13
CIRCUMOTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
It Wrongly Convicted a Rancher in
Stanislaus.
The Verdict in a Cattle Case Reversed
Set Aside by Decision of
the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court filed its decision in
Deputy Clerk Govan's office yesterday in
the case of the people VS.. Charles Fagan
appellant, from Stanislaus County. The
defendant, having been convicted of
grand larceny, appealed from the judg-
ment and order refusing him a new trial.
He claimed there was no evidence against
him, or if any, none showing that he had
committed the crime of grand larceny.
On October 2, 1891, twenty-one head of
cattle were taken from Weyer's ranch.
about twenty-one miles east of Modesto.
The next morning they were seen at
Clark's place, about three miles west OF
Modesto. They were driven from there
by William Ducker, a co-defendant OF ap-
pellant and another person, not recog-
nized, but who was not the appellant.
During the night of October Sth eleven
head of them were left or found their way
to Howard's ranch, near the Coast Range
how far from Modesto cannot be made
out from the evidence exactly, but ap-
parenuy near fifteen miles.
The brands upon these cattle had been
changed and the ears cut oil, so as to OBJ
literate the marks. Here they were taken
in charge by William Grummett, with
whose cattle they were found.
On October 18th the Sheriff of the
county, having learned of the larceny
from Weyer's place, and ofthe presence of
the cattle at Howard's, went over, took
possession, turned them into Howard's
inclosure, and asked Grummett to keep
watch of them. At the request of the
Sheriff, Grummett visited defendants
place, and finding appellants son, Frost
Pagan, informed him in regard to the
cattle. Frost said he owned the stock
and would drive them away. On the
18th, about midday, some person, who
was not recognized, drove the stock from
the inclosure toward canyon which ex-
tends into the Coast Range toward Fa-
gan's place.
The Sheriff was notified and went over
that evening with posse and tracked the
cattle to Fagan's cabin in the Coast Range.
There he found the appellant, his son
Frost, William Ducker (who had been
seen driving the cattle) and his brother,
and the eleven head which had been
driven from Howard's place the day be-
fore in a corral about fifteen feet from the
cabin.
Appellant and his son both said the
cattle were estrays. At first the appel
liant said the first time he had seen the
cattle was the morning of the 18th, when
he discovered them on the range, but
didn't know where they had come from;
then, correcting himself, he said he had
seen them there a week before. When
the Sheriff was questioning Fagan's son
as to how the cattle got into the corral,
the appellant said:
''If the cattle were stolen, Billy Ducker
and l must have done it, for Frost had
nothing to do with putting them in the
corral"
The decision reviews the case at length,
and in conclusion says:
That the circumstances raise a very
OF saTs, !
may be admitted. We are not favored
with an argument showing how the guilt
Is inferred, but it is manifest that it Is
claimed that Pagan was expecting his
son TO bring in stock, about the number
taken from Weyer, and that he was pre-
pairing for them. He was taken with
them and in the company of his son and
Ducker, who it is claimed did take them,
and drove them from Weyer's, more
than tlfty miles, to the Pagan cabin. And
then, when surprised with them, he
falsely stated that he had seen them on
the range more than week before.
mo doubt the false statements that the
stock were estrays, taken from the range,
tends very strongly to show that at the
time Charles Pagan knew, or at least sus-
pected, that the cattle had been dishon-
estly come by, but they do not prove that
previous to the theft he had advised and
encouraged its commission.
mot a circumstance is proven. which
is not entirely consistent with his inno-
cence of the particular offense with which
he is charged. To justify conviction one
must not only be proven to have commit
ted an offense, but the very offense
charged in the Indictment
'All the circumstances are consistent
with the supposition that he had advised
against the theft, or only knew of it after
its commissions; or that he was simply a
receiver of stolen goods, knowing them
to have been stolen. Perhaps the evil
dence would sustain a charge of receiving
stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen,
but the circumstances are insufficient to
show that he had, previously to the com
mission of the off'ense, advised and en-
couraged its commission"
"The judgment and order are re-
Yersed."