The record-union., 1895-09-21
THE JURY FINDS HAYES GUILTY.
He is Recommended to the Mercy of
the Court.
Five Hours Were Consumed Before the
Jurors Could Agree On
Verdict.

When the trial of "Whitey" Hayes for
robbery committed on Herman Bukkila
was resumed yesterday morning, Judge
Hinkson sustained temporarily the OBJ
lection made by W. A. Anderson, Hayes
attorney, to the introduction of Bukkila' s
deposition as evidence and ordered the
evidence of the interpreter and steno-
Rrapher who took the deposition taken.
During the examination of the inter-
prefer. he stated that he had received a
letter from Bukkila two days ago, and
that the latter was in San Francisco. On
the strength of this Mr.. Anderson OBJ
jected to the introduction of the deposit
ton, on the ground that due diligence had
not been used to secure Bukkila's attend
ance as witness. He said that by the
ruling of the court made this morning
the whole question became new one,
and as if it had never been passed upon.
The court held that the whole question
was a new one, but did not agree with
the attorney that because the Deputy
Sheriff had not asked the interpreter,
who was stranger to Bukkila, where
the latter was TO be found he had not used
due diligence. He overruled the OBJ
lection.
MIR. Anderson then asked to have the
Interpreter called again, to testify as 10
the contents of Bukkila's letter, which
was done, and the interpreter testified
that the letter stated that Bukkila was in
San francisco at work and wanted to
know when the trial would come off and
whether he must come up 10 attend it.
The court then ordered the deposition
read to the jury, and instructed them that
they were TO receive it just as they would
the other evidence. After it was read
MIR. Anderson moved to strike II out, but
the motion was Overruled.
j. +. Camp was called for the prosacu-
ton. and testified that he and others had
musical instruments, and were playing
IN saloon on X street, when defendant
Joined them. They went into the Favor
ite saloon and had some drinks, and there
was dispute about paying for some of
the drinks. Whitley" took off his coat
and put on the barkeeper's coat, and
came out from behind the bar and took
hold OF Bukkila. There was scuflle,
and when the latter went toward the door
he said they had got his money. He had
shown some 50 pieces, and got $40 piece
changed to pay for the drinks. Witness
did not see any one but Hayes take hold
of Buk kila.
Robert Allen testified to substantially
the same facts. He saw Bukkila's money
ter. 1t had $40 piece and three S. pieces.
He was positive about it. He saw Buk kila
put 1t in his right-hand pocket.
W. j. Cummings and Bert Hsmln
testified for the prosecution. The testi-
mony did not differ materially, but they
testified that Bukkila struck Hayes, when
the latter took hold of him and scuffle
began then.
NJ. Rudolph and J. II. Harris also testi-
fed for the defense. Harris said Buk kila
was standing up and was not down on
the floor.
Hayes testified in his own defense and
said he never took any money from Buk-
kila, or helped anyone else to take any.
District Attorney Ryan asked question
in relation to the scutfie, and MIR. Ander-
son objected that it was not cross-exam-
ination, as he had only asked Hayes
about taking The money. The objection
was overruled, and Hayes claimed that
he put on the barkeeper's coat and went
behind the bar and served Bukkila with
drinks before the trouble commenced,
He claimed also that Bukkila made
motion as If to draw a weapon. He took
hold OF Bukkila TO make him pay for the
drinks. but let him go without doing so.
Bukkila fell to the floor. Witness went
out before the saloon was closed up.
He was positive that he did not take any
money from Bukkila.
Ed Johnson saw nothing of the trouble
except that Bukkla struck at Hayes
while he was behind the bar.
The jury after being out for five hours
and coming into court twice for instruc-
ton on points of law and evidence,
brought in verdict of guilty, with a