The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1894-11-10
WRECKER WORDEN CONVICTED.
He is Found Guilty of Murder in the
First Degree.
The Jury Requires Only an Hour and
Quarter in Which to Arrive
at the Verdict.
special to the REcoRD-Ux1os.

ing glass he closely examined the photo
graphs of the wreck and infinitely ex-
planned to the jury that the wreck must
have been caused by the hand Of man
and not by accident.
The counsel met the alibi argument of
the defense by starting at the stable and
going over the ground inch by inch
travelled by Worden on the day of the
wreck, and by corroborative evidence
proved to his own satisfaction that the
confession was infinitely accurate, and
consequently in his opinion the alibi
theory must fall. He denied that Wor-
den had been offered money for the con-
fession, but accounted for Worden's pub
lie statement on the ground that Worden
made the confession in order TO get even
with General Hart, who had Withdrawn
: from Worden's defense and refused to
further act as his attorney.
In closing, Mr. Cook made feeling and
eloquent appeal to the jury to mete out
justice, 10 vindicate what he termed a red
handed murder, committed by gang of
lawless assassins who threatened the
overthrow of our Goyernment-men who
did not hesitate to commit any crime TO
vent personal spite against the railroad.
Against this foul crime we all must
cry out; against this blacklist of black
deeds, against this band of lawless assas
sins, should the justice of our laws be en-
forced, and the dignity and honor OF our
nation upheld. The eyes of the nation
are to-day upon Yolo County; they are
upon you, and they are looking to you to
vindicate the death of sam Clark, and
not allow the foul murder TO leave black
blot OF disgrace upon your county," said
the speaker, in tones that fairly trembled
with emotion, and amid the death-llke
stiffness of the courtroom ne concluded:
And when on that day of reckoning,
you, gentlemen, shall be called upon to
answer for your faults and for your mis-
Deeds let your conSclenceS be clear. that
you may say that having taken an oath,
solemn oath TO do my duty, L kept that
oath, and performed that sacred duty as a
citizen Gentlemen of the jury, L feel
that have now performed my duty. Do
you yours"
AT 1889 Judge Grant began his charge
to the jury. which was as follows:
Gentlemen of the Jury: The accusation
in the information is that on the 18th day
of July last s. ID. Worden murdered
Samuel G. Clark. To this charge the de-
PENDANT has pleaded mot guilty" and
upon the issue thus made between him
and the people 1t is your duty as jurors 10
pass. The Constitution of this State pro-
hibits me from expressing any opinion
In my charge To you as to whether or not
the defendant is guilty of the crime
charged, and you should not attempt to
ascertain what my opinion is, ii l have
one, or endeavor to base your verdict
upon such opinion. Nor should YOU
look for or expect to find in these instruc-
tons any such expression of opinion.
Our provinces are entirely distinct and
separate. 1t is my duty to state to you
the law applicable to the case, and it is
your duty, unaided by any suggestion
from me, to pass upon all questions of
pass upon the province of the other. ou
should receive the law as l state it to be,
Notwithstanding you may firmly believe
that ] am wrong, and that The law is, or
should be, otherwise. If you do so no
harm can come to the defendant from my
errors, if l commit any, for the Supreme
Court sits to correct them, and the Jury
should not assume to exercise the func-
lions of that court.
AS l before stated, the defendant in this
case is charged with the crime of murder,
and the theory of the prosecution is: That
on the llth day of July, 1894, the defend
ant, with others, desired TO prevent the
trains of the Southern Pacific Company,
10 which Pullman cars might be attached,
from being moved upon the railroad
tracks of said company; that, learning
that one OF the trains OF said company, to
which Pullman car would be attached,
was TO be moved upon said tracks, it was
concluded by some, at least, of those who
desired to prevent such movement of said
trains, that it would be necessary to stop
such train. should it start, even at the eX-
pense OF the lives of those on board of
said train; that, to accomplish such end,
1t was concluded to loosen one or more of
the rails of the track over which such
train would pass, and to destroy or
weaken treStle over which said tracks
were laid, so that, should such train start
over said tracks, it would leave the said
track and be precipitated into the slough
or water over which such trestle ex-
tended; that several of such persons, in
Guiding the defendant started out to
carry such conclusions into effect, and to
produce such results; that the party of
men who started upon this mission were
in a carriage, which carriage contained
tools and materials wherewith the pur-
poses aforesaid could be accomplished;
that said carriage so equipped was driven
to place near trestle upon the track of
said company, in this county, and that
the occupants of said carriage there
alighted from the same and proceeded to,
and did, all or some of them, loosen rail
or rails of said railroad track, and that
they, or some of them, did, with explos-
ives, weaken such trestle so that a rail-
road train attempting to pass such
point would be derailed and precipi-
lated into the water underneath said
trestle; that after preparing said track in
such manner, the said occupants of said
carriage IeIlreO from the scene, q rail-
road train OF cars, consisting of loco
motive, cars and a Pullman car, came
from the direction of Sacramento, and,
upon reaching said point upon said track,
was deralled and precipitated into the
water beneath or on the north side of
said trestle by reason of the preparation
and acts aforesaid of the occupants of
said carriage; that Samuel e. Clark was
the engineer upon the locomotive draw
ing said train, and that said Clark was
then and there in this county, and on the
1lth day of July, 1894, killed; that the
death of said Clark was caused by the
aforesaid acts of said occupants of said
carriage; that the defendant was one OF
the persons who started in said carriage;
that he procured the same, or drove it to
the place where the other occupants in
committing the acts aforesaid got into
said carriages and that he, said defend
ant either went with said carriage and
its said occupants to said trestle and him
self participated in the acts aforesaid, or
that he aided or abetted others OF the said
occupants of said carriage in the COM
mission of said acts, or that If he was not
then and there present with them when
thew were performing the same, that he
knew of, advised and encouraged their
commission. This, l repeat, is the theory
of the prosecution. The defendants
plea of mot guilty" is a denial of
the theory of the prosecution, and for the
purpose OF controverting the same he has
introduced evidence tending TO establish
two defenses, namely, that the misplaced
rail which the prosecution claims was the
cause of the derailment of the train, was
occasioned by climatic influences, that is,
that the heat of the sun caused such an
expansion of the track as would ana dld
cause the said derailment. The other de-