The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-11-22
The Jury Required No Lengthy
Consideration to Agree
ona Verdict.
DEFENDANTS STORY TOLD.
He Showed Good Reasons for Removing
Certain Goods From His
Home.

SAN JOSE. CAL, Nov. o1.-The case of
ex-Supervisor H. Tillotson. charged with
arson, was given to the jury this fore
noon, and after nine minutes elaboration
the jury returned verdict of not guilty.
The verdict of the jury was greeted with
applause. The case has attracted great
deal of attention. owing to the fact that the
defendant had been rather prominent in
Democratic political circles.
Tillotson took the stand in his own be-
half at the opening of court this morning
and gave brief history OF his life. He said
he was born in Ohio, that he came to Cali
fornia in 1852. He settled in Yuba County
and later lived in Suffer County, where he
was engaged IN mining and kept hotel.
He also did some farming in Suffer County.
He was elected Assessor of Suffer in 1868.
After serving his term in that Office he re-
moved TO this county and engaged in
farming. He was subsequently elected
Supervisor. He said he moved into his
house on Delmas avenue about two years
ago. The house cost $1,000. The defend
ant detailed his acquaintance with Dun
lap, a witness who has figured prominently
in the case. He said he was acquainted
with Dunlap and had visited him at Hyde
Park
He denied that he had ever confessed to
Dunlap that he had burned the house.
He said he went TO Dunlap's to get $500,
which Dunlap owed him for the lot on
which he lived. He said that ne had
given Dunlap deed to the lot, but he had
never received cent for it. In answer to
questions as to why things were removed
from the house before the fire Tillotson
said:
Il intended going away, and spoke
openly of it. l was going to Ogden to see
if [ could dispose of valuable property
there. My place on Delmas avenue was
for sale. 1 sent various things to my son
to keep for me while was away. There
was nothing secret about any of this-all
was open and done in public
Mrs. Parkhurst agreed to buy the piano
for $500, and l delivered the piano to her
about the first of May. tried to sell the
piano to others. All this was done openly
without thought of any secrecy, as there
was nothing to conceal. The picture, a
portrait of my deceased daughter, l es-
teemed very highly, and had often said
that would not take $500 for it. 1t was
not insured and l had right to move it.
/ took it to Mrs. Parkhurst. The suit of
clothes which | took to tailor's for clean
ing was made fifteen years ago.
when the house was destroyed / made
a statement of the things lost to the ad-
juster from memory. l met him at the
Lamolle Home. In making the statement
of the articles lost forgot to mention one
bed and bureau. l only gave in five win
dow-curtains when there were seven. I
overlooked them. There was nothing in
the statement of the loss which was not
actually in the building and destroyed.
The witness said he. had not set fire to
the house, and knew of no plan to burn it.
He said that the night of the fire he was
unwell and had been out of his rooms sew
eral times. He was lying down in the bed
with his trousers and vest on when he was
awakened and found the house in flames
He testified that he had made tea on the
gasoline stove in the evening. There had
been fire from this stove on several occa-
sions caused by the gasoline leaking to the
floor.
This closed the testimony and the de-
Tense offered to submit the case without
argument. Deputy District Attorney Par
fridge addressed the jury for short time.
The jury was then charged by Judge Lori
gan. They retired and returned in nine
minutes with verdict of not guilty.