The record-union., 1894-02-16

whenever Harris wanted it. At first
hodehaver said there had been no writ
ten contract between himself and Gold
smith relative to the type, but afterward
sad there was and he would try to find
1t. ROdehaver told witness that he had
been thinking seriously OF Informing
hlm OF the type being in the Argus Office.
On eross-eXamination, ConrOy said that
prior to the theft of the type he told Ro-
dehaver that he knew Of certain things to
the discredit Of Goldsmith, and advised
him to discharge the latter Rodehaver
SAID he knew that Goldsmith was no
good, but gave him employment on ac-
count OF his father, who was an old
friend.
j. B. Harris, one of the proprietors of
the NeWS, testified to the discovery of the
loss OF the type on the 2Sth day of Janu-
ary, and how it was found in the ATguS
office at Auburn on Tuesday morning.
Stuart was seen that morning and said
ne and Goldsmith had gone TO Lincoln on
Saturday morning ana got trunk.
When Sheriff Conroy pinned him
down, however, Stuart admitted that
they went to Sacramento and got some
type from the NeUS office. The type
cases were found in different parts of the
Argus Office. Neither Rodehaver nor
Fitzsimmons assisted in finding the type.
Rodehaver simply said the type was there
and they might help themselves. The
witness, Stanton and the Sheriff carried
the type out upon the sidewalk. Some of
the missing material has not yet been re-
covered.
Mr.. Harris said that Goldsmith asked
him not to be severe on him, as he had
had great deal OF domestic trouble ana
needed money.
AT the conclusion of Harris testimony
Justice Henry said he wished to ask
question.
You say that when you went to the
ArgtS office the first thing Goldsmith
said to you was: How are you, June?'
WitneSs-Yes, sir.
Justice Henry-But it was January,
wasn't it?
Witness Qeaving the stand)-Well, it
was cold day-for some one.
Ed. Stanton, printer, testified to hav-
Ing gone 30 Rocklin and obtained a clue
as to the whereabouts of the stolen type,
also to some of the statements made by
Goldsmith and others when the type was
found.
The prosecution here rested, and Mr..
Lardner, of counsel for the defense,
moved that defendants Rodehaver, Eitz-
simmons and Stuart be discharged.
lie argued that if the defendants were
held it must be on the testimony of an
accomplice (Goldsmith), and he held
was not sufficient TO warrant the holding
of the defendants named. He scored the
witness Goldsmith, on whose statement
alone the others were charged with crime.
he stood in such an unenviable light, un-
corroborated as to the main facts, that all
the statements made by him were
absolutely worthless. If there had been
any cOrrObOratiye testimony to show that
Rodehaver, Fitzsimmons and Stuart had
Ir1fN Will .nl6
smith it would be different. Here was
witness who confessed to five different
felonies, unnecessarily admitted by him,
and he had been produced as the main
witness for the prosecution.
Mr.. Lardner then reviewed the cir
cumstances attending Goldsmith's en-
ployment by the ArguS people, and his
contract with them to sell some type
which he claimed to be in his possession.
Conroy that he alone was guilty. but
subsequently dragged the other defend
ants into the case. 1t was unreasonable
to suppose that young men in the prime
of life. with families dependent on them
and of good standing in their community,
would enter into a conspiracy to steal
type from another Office. knowing that it
would certainly be discovered. Rode
haver, Stuart and FltZsimmons should
not be held on such testimony as has been
offered.
The complaint alleges that Sheehan and
Harris were copartners, owning the type,
but by Harris testimony it appears that
the copartnership also included General
T. J. Clunie.
District Attorney Ryan argued that
there had been strong corroboratiye testi-
mony to that Of fGoldsmith, and instanced
that of Stuart COnroy and the stableman
who let the team and cart to Rodehaver
for the use of Goldsmith and Stuart. The
testimony of May, as to statements made
by Stuart and Goldsmith at Smiths
stable on their arrival in this city, shows
that Stuart knew what they were after
and wished to conceal the purpose. Stuart
spoke to Sheriff ConrOy of their having
gone to Lincoln and got a trunk there,
and did not admit the truth until the theft
had been exposed and the stolen material
found.
AS to the NeaUS Office ownership it was
enough to show that the firm of Sheehan
IL Harris were the lessees and in pos
session of the office to bear out the COM
plant
The motion was argued at some length
by Mr.. Ryan, who held that there was an
abundance of corroborative testimony to
bear out that of Goldsmith, and there was
every reason why the defendants should
be held. Rodehaver and titZsimmons
were the only persons to profit by the
transaction, and the fact that the type was
placed in their office for use makes the
case strong one. The defendants read
in the RECORD UNION that the theft of
the type had been discovered on the fol-
lowing day, and if they were not in
volved i'll the conspiracy they should
have notified the authorities of the fact
that the type had been brought to their
office without any connivance on their
part Again. the purchase by Rodehaver
of the cotton shows that it had nothing
to do with the bringing of trunk from
Lincoln.
Mr.. Tuttle, of counsel for all the defend
ants except Goldsmith, next addressed
the court in support of the motion for
their discharge, holding that under Sec
ton III OF the Penal Code they were en-
titled to be set at liberty. He argued that
there was nothing shown outside OF Gold
smiths statement to connect Rodehaver
or titzsimmons with the theft of the
type.
Rodehaver knew that Goldsmith was
going alter type, and the cotton was
purchased for that purpose, but he
did not know that the type was stolen.
The officers arrived in Auburn within
two hours after ROdehaver read in the
RECORD UNION of the theft. Ii he wished
to he could have thrown the type into
bags and concealed it, if he were guilty,
but no attempt at concealment was made.
Stuart was the only one who had placed
himself so far in the hands OF Goldsmith
as 10 leave his conduct open TO criticism,
but he was deceived.
Goldsmith, he said, had voluntarily
told OF his having stolen other type from
the Negs office and sold it to Dunkel of
Rocklin under pretense of owning 1t. If
bunkel had not promptly settled for it
Goldsmith would no doubt have had him
dragged here on a charge similar to that
AGAINST the defendants in this case.
c. L. Jones, on behalf Of Goldsmith, re-
piled to the structures made upon his