The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1897-05-12
THE LANDSBOROUGH CASES.
BE is Now Being Tried on the First
Indictment.
What Some of the 80 Jurors Testi-
fled to Yesterday in
Court.

The courtroom of Department Three
OF the Superior Court was not large
enough to hold onehalf the crowd or
people that gathered yesterday to listen
to the proceedings in the trial OF eX-
Deputy County Clerk L. NJ. Landspor-
ough, who was indicted on several
counts of fraudulently raising demands
against the county and of forgery. so
the trial was transferred to the room
of Department One.
The particular charge on which he is
now being tried is that Of having raised
the demands of John Pruett and K. d.
Lauppe, members of the jury panel who
served in Department Three Of the Su-
perior Court last fall. The case is be-
ing tried before Superior Judge Gaddls
of Yolo and a jury whose names were
published yesterday.
District Attorney Ryan is conducting
the prosecution, and the defendant has
the assistance of Lawyers Hiram w.
johnson, Frank S. Sprague, Clinton l..
White and Arthur Seymour. By his
side yesterday were seated his wife and
several small children.
When court opened yesterday Dis
trict Attorney Ryan made his opening
statement, in which he recited the ma
ture of the charges against Landsbor-
ough, and said it would be shown that
the offenses charged had been COM
mitted.
County Clerk W. B. Hamilton was
called to the witness stand to testify
to Landsboroughs official connection
To "a he
was the Clerk of Department Three of
the Superior Court, and the nature of
his duties as such. Mr. Hamilton
identified the handwriting in the Pruett
demand as that of marlborough, with
the exception of the Pruett signature.
To nearly all of the questions asked
the witness objections We're interposed,
but rarely allowed by the court.
E. S. Wachhorst, Chief Deputy in the
Clerks office, was called to identify
LandsbCrough's entries in the record Of
Department Three. He said he was
familiar enough with the defendants
handwriting, but when it came to fig
ures he could not swear to them as
having been made by any particular
person. He believed the writing in the
body of the Pruett demand for jury fees
to be in marlborough hand.
John Pruett testified that he was z
juror in Judge Harris court last fall.
When discharged from further service
he asked Clerk marlborough if he was
paying off the jurors. The latter said
he was. and figured out the number of
days the witness had served as twenty
six at 50 day. He signed a blank de-
mand for the amount, $50.
The demand itself was identified by
the witness. 1t called for forty-one
days, and the amount was So.
County Auditor R. T. Cohn was called
to testify concerning the warrant is
sued in Pruett's name, but under the
objection of the defendants counsel,
that the warrant itself was the best
evidence, the testimony was not ad
mitted.
The production of the next witness
in the person of Juror A. F. Core Of
Franklin, brought an energetic protest
from the defense against the introduce
ton of testimony bearing on another
and distinct alleged offense, and the
argument pro and con continued for a
couple of hours. Lawyer Johnson cited
decisions of the Supreme Court that
seemed to be conclusive against the le-
gality of such testimony, but District
Attorney Ryan cited others apparently
just as strong the other way, backed
up by authorities on evidence.
The upshot of the argument was that
the court decided that in cases like
that on trial where the alleged offenses
We're similar and contemporaneous. the
testimony was admissible in order to
show the intent of the defendant.
To this ruling the defense filed their
exception, with the understanding that
it applied to the testimony of each and
every witness whose evidence related
to any act other than that specified in
the indictment on which the accused
was being tried.
Then, under the ruling of the court.
several of those who served on the
same jury panel with Pruett were
called and examined as to their dealings
with the defendant regarding their fees
as jurors.
A. F. Core said marlborough figured
out his time and paid him $50, for
which he signed a blank demand on
the county, It was produced in court
and he Identified his signature. The
demand called for $50.
Similar testimony was given by c. f.
Fordenwaldt. He received So 60
but the demand as filled out called for
So 60.
L. Derr got $50 90 from Landsbor-
ough, but the demand called for
$50 GO
J. II. Devine served twenty-one days
and received from the defendant SD
The demand called for So.
J. D. Birch signed blank claim for
81 30 and received that sum, but he
testified that he saw in the office of Mr.
Hyde Oandsborough's financial backer)
a power OF attorney in his name call
ing for SIS. Landsborough admitted
TO him having raised his claim on
cross examination, however, Mr.. John
son obtained from the witness the adj