Amador ledger. (Jackson, Amador County, Calif.) 1875-19??, 1901-12-13
The United States Gov
eminent Report shows
ROYAL Baking Powder to
be stronger, purer and
better than any other.
The Gotow Case.

The trial of VIM. Gotow, accused of
grand larceny, committed on or about
the 18th day of July last in stealing
from the Stone Company at one of
their camps at Tabeaud reservoir lot
of harness, was commenced in the su-
perior court on Monday morning.
Little difficulty was experienced in Sc
curing jury from the regular Yenire.
The following jurors were sworn to try
the case:
o. E. Martin, Lee Martin, J. c..
RAIDER, Thomas Simmons, Walter Dent,
T. K. Norman, w. c. Littlefeld, H.
N. Dickerman, Andrew Winter, j. M.
Kirk, Jos. Noe, w. H. Blakely.
The case presented some peculiar
features. Six sacks of harness were
missed from the camp, and hid in the
brush near the road side. Gotow and
another employee named Fred Christen-
son, were arrested on the 29th of July
and charged with the crime. Some
time thereafter Christensen pleaded
guilty, under the impression conceived
| by himself that it would be better for
him to do so. GOtow, however, denied
any criminal participation in the affair,
and resOlutely determined to stand
trial. He has been confined in the
county jail since the Goth of July, being
unable to furnish bonds. Twice the in
formation filed against him on this
charge has been quashed on demurrer
on technical grounds. He was rear
rested Immediately after each dismissal,
and the third information was held to
be valid, and upon that the trial was
had. Christensen was brought up
from San Quen tin as a Witness at the
request of the prosecution, but instead
was used as witness for the defense.
It was brought out that this convict
witness was not interviewed by the at
torney for the defense, Neil Mac
quarrie, prior to his taking the stand !;
and also that he was interviewed by
the district attorney on the evening
prior to his taking the stand, and told
what the defendant himself had testi-
fed to on that day. His testimony
given at his own preliminary examina-
ton, was utterly inconsistent with that
given in the Gotow case. In the former
he implicated GOtow as the prime
mover in the crime; in the latter he
seemed to eXonerate him. The story
as told by the prosecution was that as
Mr.. Palmer, the bookkeeper, was re-
turning to the camp late at night, he
overlook Christensen and GotOw on
the roadside. They were hauling some
sacks. They told him they had quit
work. The next morning the harness
was missed, but both men were at work
with their teams as usual. Remem ber-
ing the incident of the night before it
naturally suggested itself that the two
men and the sacks were connected with
the missing horse clothing. Investi-
cations resulted in Christensen admit
ting the theft, and he took the officers
to where the six sacks had been con-
cealed on the south side of the road.
Reaching the spot, they found only
three sacks. Gotow revealed where
the other three sacks had been re-
moved to the north side of the road.
He was the only ono who knew the
whereabouts of these sacks. Gotow
had couple of horses and a spring
wagon in the neighborhood of Slab
town. He told a somewhat plausible
story that he had been roped into the
affair innOcently. He had been asked
by Christensen to help him move some
sacks, and did so, not knowing what
they contained; but he did know that
his companion had been in state prison.
Christensen corroborated his story to
the extent that Gotow did not take the
harness from the barn, and did not
know what the sacks contained. The
theory of the prosecution was that the
two men conspired to steal the prop
erty and divide it between. That the
three sacks removed to the north side
of the road constituted Gotow's por-
ton, and the three left where originally
concealed were his co-worker's share of
the plumber. The jury got the case
about five O'Clock, and in about an hour
arrived at verdict of guilty as charged.
He will be sentenced tomorrow.