Arizona republican., 1903-05-17
SENTENCE PASSED
 JN ANDERSON
He Gets Five and a Half
 Years in Yuma
The Defense Made Strong Plea for a New Trial-Why the Defendant Be. lieved He Ought to Be Leniently Dealt With.

Josiah Anderson was yesterday sen fenced to five years and six months in the penitentiary. having been convicted of manslaughter in the killing of Will jam Cameron at Agua Caliente on the night of the 31st of last August. The sentence was preceded by the presenta- ton and argument of a motion for a new trial, which was denied.
 The motion was based on various al- legged errors but there were two priuci- pal grounds. One of them was that the court In passing upon the instruc- tions submitted by the attorneys fer the defense neglected to inscribe in ink over his signature the words "grantad' or refused" It was also urged that the court erred in the instruction Ie- garding justification. The instruction, submitted by the district attorney on this point was drawn in the language of the United States statute. It direct ed that the killing of Cameron by the defendant having been established, the onus of proving the justification rested upon the defendant. The court added , to this the instruction that the justifi- cation must be shown by "a preponder- ance of evidence
 The Arizona law on that point is the same as the California law. In Califor- mia it used to be held that a prepon- derance of testimony for the establish ment of Justification was necessary. but the supreme court reversed itself and made new rule that such an in- sgruction is a reversible error.
 frin Do Ea ground that while in the case of the adoption of the law of a state, courts are bound by the decision of that state regarding the same law, they are not bound to take notice of subse- quent contrary decisions.
 Captain Alexander for the defense raised the very interesting point that the law of Arizona had been enacted since the later California decision; that is. that the law had been re-enacted by the legislature of 1901 when it adopt ed the present code. This view was not sustained by the court.
 Another contention was this: It will be remembered that at the beginning of the trial the defense moved for a con- tinuance in order that it might have time to secure an important witness | gave the attorneys for the defense fi- teen minutes to prepare their affidavit for a continuance and added within the hearing of the venire that if the contin- uance were granted, on account of the seriousness of the crime charged in the indictment, he would remand the de- fendant to jail without bail It was contended by the defendants attorneys that he statement was calculated to prejudice the members of the venire.
 The last thing the defense asked for was a certificate of probable cause. This, too, was denied and nothing stood between Anderson and the penitentiary. Before sentence was passed the priso- ner was given an opportunity to ad- dress the court He did so in so low a tone that he could not be distinctly heard. He said in the first place, that. being forced to trial without important witnesses. who could not only have proved his innocence, but would have shown that the most damaging testi- nlony against him was perjured, he had not had a fair and impartial trial. He added that he had once before been un- justly convicted Of a felony.
 In passing sentence Judge Kent said that the cOnNlctlOn naQ been In the 1n- that the conviction had been victory for law and order. an indirect compli- rnent to the office of the district attor- rey, which was calculated to make men safer and place a higher price on hu- man life in this county.
 The defendant was remanded. It is not certain when he will be taken to Yuma. He telegraphed his father. Cap tain John s. Anderson, to come to Phoenix, as he had some business to transact with him.
 The only other matter of importance before the court was the Irvine case. The proceedings consisted of the talk ing of testimony regarding the value of the property tranferred by Edward Irvine at different times to his son, Joseph Irvine. and his present wife. The statement was made in the course of the testimony that the principal de- fendant was worth $127.000. He said that his wealth was not so great, since he was considerably involved. The ar g-uments were begun but not concluded.
 The rest of the business of the day consisted for the most part of the re- setting of cases and times for the hearing of demurrers and motions. n