The record-union., 1896-09-23
or information. Filed February IL, 1895.
w. B. HAMILTON, Clerk.
By L. M. Landsborough, Deputy Clerk.
ATTORNEY ANDERSON'S STATE


Of the case and telling how the amount
Of Blacks bond was fixed:
To the editor Of the "Bee''-Sir: AS
the attorney who defended J. III. Black,
and as member of the judicial family
OF Judges Catlin, Johnson and Hink-
son, I feel it my duty to present,
through the columns Of the "Bee," a
defense and justification OF Judge
Catlin, against the reflections upon his
action in the Black case. In the first
place, all persons know that Judge Cat
lin possesses a most superior legal
mind, and has no superior in this or
any other State, as a lawyer. 1t is
one of the axioms in this part of the
State that the litigants' rights are
safe in Judge Catlin's hands," The los
ing party, except in rare cases, gener-
ally admits the ultimate business of
his decision
The principal cause for the late re-
Elections on Judge Catlin is the admis-
sion Of j. H. Black to bail. The amount
OF each of the bonds when Black, with
three other defendants, was indicted,
was fixed at $1,000 in each case by in
dorsement on the back of the indict-
ment by the District Attorney, as is
usual in such cases. The court can
have no knowledge of the facts of a
case until it comes to trial, but the
District Attorney who is the only per-
son outside Of the Grand Jury room
that hears the evidence before the
Grand Jury, is fully advised.
In the Black case the amount Of the
bail bond was not changed by Judge
Catlin from the amount originally fixed
by the District Attorney at the time
the defendant was arraigned. If there
had been an apparent need for raising
the amount Of the bond at any time,
it was the duty Of the law officer of
the county to bring that fact to the at
tention of the court. There never was
any dissatisfaction with the amount of
the bail bond, and the amount was the
usual sum in such cases.
No fault can be justly found with
either the District Attorney or the
Judge with reference to the amount of
the bond; nor can it be said that blame
is justly imputable to the San Fran
cisco Judge who approved the sureties,
for the reason that the sureties justi-
fed under oath before him, and the
dispositions Of the sureties, In addition
to the ordinary justification. giving the
amount, location and character Of their
property, were attached to the bond.
Under such a justification the court
could not do other than approve the
bond
AS the grounds upon which the new
trial was granted, the Judge can safe
ly rest upon the decisions of the Su-
preme Court of this State cited in his
opinion, and upon numerous others that
could be cited which, apprehend
would have more legal force than a
mere reportorial note in the Bee"
One statement certainly needs cor
rection-namely, that the remarks OF
the District Attorney were not taken
down by the stenographic reporter al
my request, and when they were read
to the court on my motion for new
trial from the reporters notes in the
presence Of the District Attorney, he
cid not, nor could he, question their
correctness.
The quotations in the Judges opinion
are exactly correct quotations from the
reporters notes, and it is rather late
in the day for the District Attorney to
he Is quoted as saying. With regard to
the statement Of the evidence in the
case. the Bee" did not note the fact
that six reputable witnesses testified
that j. H. Black was at work in San
Francisco on the day on which the rob-
tery was committed. This was sup
ported by the evidence Of a time book,
the correctness Of which could not be
disputed, wherein it was shown that
Black was at work In the carriage fac
tory for a number Of days prior. during
and subsequent to the robbery.
James E. Broderick, who had kept the
time book for several years, testified
to its correctness, and that J. H.
Black was at work there at the time
the robbery was committed Mr.. Brod-
erick is an honored and worthy citizen
OF San Francisco and could not be mis-
taken as to the identity Of j. H Black
Thomas A. Jones, a fellow workman
with J. II. Black, testified that he
worked at the anvil with him for a
number Of days before and after the
day of the robbery. and on that day
he was at work with him. The uncle,
mother and two sisters of defendant
riage factory on the day Of the rob-
berry. Here were six reputable wit
nesses who were positive that J. H.
Black was not in Sacramento on the
day Of the robbery
In addition to those was the testi-
n ony Of Felix Tracy, and the books Of
Wells, Fargo & Co. upon certain ma
terial facts, which corroborated Mrs.
Black, the mother Of defendant.
On the motion for a new trial af-
oavits were presented of newly discov-
cred evidence, which added to the
strength Of the testimony already
given. In those it was shown by three
other witnesses that j. H. Black was in
San Francisco on the day Of the rob-
berry, by some other record facts as
we'll as the positive evidence of the wit
nesses.
Under these facts there is no court
III the world which would MT have
granted new trial. And had Judge
Catlin refused to grant the order. I
would nave procured reversal of his
judgment upon the mere presentation
Of the facts to the Supreme Court.
The prosecution rested chiefly upon
the alleged confession of one Edwards.
who implicated ]. H. Black. II Is one
Of the wise provisions of our laws that
the statements Of a participant in a
crime against another person whom he
wishes to implicate, must be discarded
unless supported by some other posi-
tive evidence.
We all know that hatred, love and re-
venge and avarice will prompt o vicious
person to ruin or injure any other per-
sen who may become the object of the
exercise Of these emotions.