Amador ledger., 1903-12-18
THE DEAR DEER CASE.
The Editor of the Ledger is Tried for
Writing, About the Killing of Deer
An All-Day Trial Ends in a Dis

ard Webb accused of having deer meat
heard before Justice Goldner on Mon
day last. The trial l:was held in the
supervisors room in the hall of records,
as the interest taken in the proceedings
was such that the usual justice court
room was too contracted to accom-
modate the spectators. A venue was
issued for 80 jurors. The entire morn
ing session was occupied in securing a
jury. Finally the following named
twelve men were sworn to try the case;
Geo. Kirkwood, p. L. Cassinelli, A.
Hamrick, w. E. Speer, 7, Schwartz,
A. H. Kuhlman, W. E. Kent, r. w.
Ketcham, J. Wilson, ]. D. Mason, and
F. Burgin.
The district attorney, c. p Vicini,
was on hand to conduct the prosecu-
ton, aud G. H. Crocker appeared for
the defendant. The proceedings were
of the most farccsl nature. Proba bly,
never in the history of Amador county
and we believe the remark will apply
to the state-was such case ventila5e
before a jury, or the rules of evidence
cast aside with such scant considera-
| tion. Not once in the course o. The
whole trial was an objection to tn in-
PRODUCTION of testimony as irreleveut,
made in behalf of the defendant, sus-
tained by the court. Everything went
in. We may hereafter comment upor
some of the features of this remark
able case-remarkable in more ways
than one-but for the present we shall
content ourselves with brief narration
of the facts.
L. N. Kercheval, state deputy, was
the first witness. He it was who swore
to the complaint and made the ARE t.
He Travelled 200 miles for this purpose.
And he swore to the complaint not on
information, but of his own knowledge.
The complaint charged that defendant
had deer meat in his possession on Or
about the Goth of November. In testi-
| flying, however, he admitted that he
never saw the defendant until the 4th
of December when he made the arrest.
That all he knew was what he saw in
the Amador Ledger of Nov. 81. He
first saw the paper in the office of G.
VogeIsang, the chief deputy, in San
Francisco. He never saw any deer
meat in defendant possession, and did
not know whether he ever had any or
not. He was not under bonds.
o. Fl. Reichling was the next wit
ness. He said he went to the ranch of
A. Jones, a couple Of miles west of Pine
Grove, in company with G. B. Arditto,
the local game warden. He was secre-
tary of the Jackson game association,
and also deputy game warden under
Arditto. When asked to detail con-
versation he had with A. Jones, the de-
Tense interposed an objection that such
was inadmissable, unless it was first
shown that the defendant was present.
1t is well-settled principle of law that
a defendant could not be bound by
statements of other parties made not in
his presence. The objection was brush
ed aside without ceremony, He then
said that Jones told him that he took
piece of venison to Jackson, and left
it with Mrs. Webb. That he saw Mr..
Webb afterwards and told him about
it; that ne had killed the deer on the
28th of October That he had omitted
to tell Mr.. Webb not to say anything
in the paper about it. Witness never
saw deer meat in the possession of de-
fendant.
j. S. Garbarini was next examined.
He said he had conversation with de-
fendant on the evening OF Nov. 81, at
his living rooms. Mrs. Webb was pres
ent. He started to josh about the arti-
Gle in the Ledger. Wanted to know if
it was put in to test the game associa-
ton. He said it vas not. It was
simple mistake on his part as to when
the deer was killed; he had no doubt
that the animal was killed in the open
season, and he neglected to look at the
law as to when the open season ended.
Mrs. Webb spoke up and said that she
received a parcel from Mr.. Jones; that
she did not ask any questions, and did
not know what it was; that she was
sorry on Mr.. Jones account. Never
saw any venison in possession of de-
| fendant.
A copy of the Ledger of Novemb Der
9th, containing the five or six line
article acknowledging the receipt by
the Ledger Office of sample of
venison, was thereupon admitted in
evidence, against the objections of de-
fense. This was the only material OBJ
ject introduced in levidence during the
trial. 1t had to do service as occular
demonstration that deer was actually
killed, and also that the defendant had
received a portion OF it.
G. b. Arditto then related his story.
He is game warden of Amador county,
and deputy under the state board.
He gave somewhat different version
of the conversation with A. Jones.
He said Mr.. Jones toldethem he had de-
livered piece of venison at the Led
ger Office to Mrs. Webb, for Mr.. Webb.
That he afterwards met the defendant
on the street and told him about leav-