Amador ledger., 1906-07-13
The lie Doux Case.


convicted of the murder of A. N.
McVicar in Stockton on the 23d of
March, last Monday was the day fixed
by the superior court of San JOAQUIN
county, for passing sentence upon
the convicted prisoner. There was
one possible sentence to pronounce
under the form of verdict rendered
namely, the penalty of death. The
court room was again crowded with
the morbidly curious, the women
greatly predominating. Mrs Ledoux
appeared attIred in black, and seemed
pale, and shrunken in features. and
worn out, but still self possessed and
dignified in bearing. She was repre-
sented by Attorney Falrall. G. Ii.
Crocker was not present, he having
business to attend to in San Andreas.
When Judge Nutter ordered Mrs
Ledoux to stand up, she rose to her
feet, placing her hands upon the
table before her as if to support
herself. The court asked if she had
legal cause why judgment should not
be pronounced. At this point attor-
ney t'airall interposed; and the de-
fendant resumed her seat. The attor
ney thereupon made a motion for a
new trial. alleging misconduct on
the part of the jury, errors of the
court in its rulings, illegal seizure of
letters belonging to the accused; the
prejudice of officials entrusted with
the duty of summoning Jurors; also
the ruling of the court in not per-
mitting the defendant to introduce
evidence disprovlng motive, and in
PRODUCTION of evidence relative to
| plgamous marriage. A sensation was
created when the attorney introduced
two attidavits tending to show pre-
Judice on the part of at least one
juror, August G. Ritter. One affidavit
was sworn to by Charles f. Murphy.
a colored person, 10 years of age.
1t read as follows:
CHARLES f. Murphy, being first
duly sworn on oath deposes and says,
L am 10 years of age and reside at
80 East Main street, in the city of
Stockton. L have known August g.
Ritter, who was one of the Jurors in
the trial of the defendant, Emma LIE
Doux, in the above entitled cause.
for period of two years: that after
the said August g. Ritter was selected
and sworn as a juror in said cause.
and while said cause was being tried
IN the above court, and before the
taking of testimony had been closed
and the cause submitted to said iury.
atfiant met said August G. Ritter in
the courthouse of San Joaquin county
and asked him what about the wo-
man, referring to the defendant above
named, and said August G. Ritter
replied: 81 Will hang the -"
referring to the defendant ~
The other affidavit read as follows
"WiIliam H. Smith, on oath being
duly sworn, states that he is we'll
acquainted with August g. Ritter.
one of the jurors in the above entitled
cause and one of the jurors who tried
said defendant, Emma LIE Doux, and
found her guilty; that after the com
mission of the otfense charged against
the defendant and prior to the time
OF his selection as juror in said
case, the said August &. Ritter said
TO affiant: Il believe that woman, ,
referring to defendant, is guilty and
she ought to have her neck broke. ,
After said Ritter had been selected
as juror, atfiant met Ritter at City
Park, at the east end of Main street,
in Stockton, and was told by said
Hitter that he was down there sweat
ing on the LIE Doux jury Affiant
then said, How can you serve as a
juror in that case, and Ritter said
Well, am there, and nothing
more"
Ihe atfidavits staggered the court,
mainly no doubt in the audacity in
volved in their presentation. Under
the instruction of the court the Jurors
we're not allowed to talk about the
case either among themselves or to
outsiders during the trial; to attempt
to converse about the case to a Juror
was contempt OF the court, and vet
Two men came forward and admitted
that they had actually talked with
Ritter about. the case. Ritter, it
seems, is not in the state at the pre-
sent time. He Is somewhere in the
east on visit to his mother, and
hence it Will be some time before he
will be able to answer the charges
made against him. Judge Nutter at
once ordered citations to issue. COM
manding the affidavit makers, Murphy
and Smith to appear on tuesday to
show cause why they should not be
punished for contempt of court. The
court ordered them to pay fine of
500 each and be imprisoned tor two
days.
The hearing of motion for new trial
was continued until Ritter can he
heard in his own behalf.