The herald., 1896-08-02
The End Is in Sight for Engineer
WOrden
SUPREME COURT DECISION
The Judgment Of the Yolo County Court
Is Sustained
Sequel to the Death Of Engineer Clark In
the Great Railroad Strike
Of 1894

who was convicted Of wrecking South
ern Pacific train near Sacramento dur
ing the great railway strike Of 1894. and
causing the death of Engineer Samuel
c. Clark and four United States soldiers.
The supreme court handed down a de-
cision Wednesday in which 1t affirmed
the judgment of Judge Grant Of Yolo
county, before whom Worden was tried
and sentenced to death.
Judgment was entered against Wor-
den on November 16, 1894. The specific
charge against him was the murder of
Engineer Clark. The wreck took place
at trestle a few miles west of Sacra-
mento. For several days all trains
had been fled up, and regular troops
were in charge of the Sacramento depot.
The Southern Pacific officials on July
18th determined to open the line
through to San Francisco and to this
end one of the blockaded trains was
made up under a strong guard Of SOL
diers. Near Washington, small town
in Yolo county. the locomotive struck
rail on trestle from which the spike 8
had been removed and jumped the track
followed by the tender and mail cars.
To make the work of destruction more
certain timhers had been sawed, and
when the engine reached the middle of
the structure It fell into the water be-
meath.
Engineer Sam Clark, who had re-
manned with bis locomotive, was buried
in the mud beneath his engine. Three
OF the soldier guards were drowned,
another was injured in such a manner
that he died the following night, and
three others were hurt.
Worden was arrested by the Sacra-
mento police on the night Of the tragedy,
with Knox, Compton, Mullin and Hatch,
other strikers, who were believed to be
implicated in the crime. The defend
ants demanded separate trials. Wor-
den was convicted and sentenced to
death, and the remainder of the prison.
ers discharged.
The evidence against Worden was
mostly of a circumstantial nature, and
three days after his conviction the case
was taken to the supreme court.
The strength of the appeal was based
upon errors alleged to have been COM
mitted by the court below in charging
the jury, and the decision of yesterday
is important inasmuch as it has bear
ing on the question of jury charging
The defense argued that Judge Grant
was biased in the case, and did not O.
justice to the defendant in his instruc-
tons. Commenting on this assertion
the court says:
The only hostile criticism with which
the charge can justly be assailed is that
upon points; it is, perhaps, too lengthy
and elaborate, but 1t is a fair and cor
rect statement of the law applicable to
the case. Counsel for appellant, in a
brief exceedingly we'll constructed, en-
deavored with great ability to separate
the oh in 70 At cd fro MT md
to attack each singly and unaided by
the context. OF course, if any one indie
pendent instruction contains an abso-
Lutte error upon particular point of law
such error is not always cured by the
fact that the law upon such a point is
correctly given in another instruction
but as a general rule, dividing a long
charge into minute parts and analyzing
and criticising each part as though it
stood independent of all the others Is
not proper method of arriving at the
correctness or incorrectness of the
whole.
We see no error in the language: you
should receive the law as I state it to
be, Notwithstanding that you may firm
ly believe that l am wrong, and that the
law is or should be otherwise" The lat
ter part of the sentence is unnecessary
but it in no way affects the correctness
Of the proposition that the jury must
take the law from the court.
The statement by the judge Of the the
DRY of the prosecution was not, as con-
tended by appellant, a statement of
facts. Neither was there any error in
the statement of the judge of the de-
lenses of the appellant. Now, the Judge
in his charge said that the appellant
had introduced evidence tending to es-
tablish two defenses, viz: That the
| misplaced rail was caused by climatic
influences, that Is by expansion by heat.
and, secondly, that he was not engaged
IN the wrecking of the train, but was in
the city of Sacramento for some houre
be1ore and after the Wrecking occurred.
He also said: This second defense is
| called in law an allbi" We see nothing
IN this erroneous or prejudicial to the
appellant. In the first place it was not
said that no evidence was introduced
as to other points, and the statement wa G
properly Introductory to Instructions
upon the defenses named. In the second
place, the record shows that the two
matters mentioned by the Judge as de-
lenses We're in fact the only two in
volved ~"
In the briefs Of counsel for appellant
the subject of legal malice is largely
discussed-an admirable subject for re-
! iined disquisition-but we see nothing
in the charge upon that subject that is
erroneous or substantially different from
| the definitions of malice to he found
| IN the codes. The same can be said of
| the charge of reasonable doubt. OF
! course II would be much the better
! course for trial judges, as has freouentiv
been said by this court, to limit their
descriptions of reasonable doubt to Ian
guege which has received repeated i'll
dicial approval