Amador ledger. (Jackson, Amador County, Calif.) 1875-19??, 1909-01-22
ROSS DISCHARGED
ON HABEAS CORPUS
Full Text of the Courts Decision

the County OF Amador, State of Cali
fornia.'
Ex parte, William Ross, on habeas
corpus.
The petitioner and one Mary Ross.
we're held to answer by magistrate
OF this county upon charge OF grand
larceny in that they did feloniously
steal certain deed executed by one
}. d. Mason to Mary Brilliant, bear
ing date Dec. 9Th, 1903, conveying
certain lots in San Joaquin county of
the value of SI0O, belonging to said
Mason.
The petitioner in default of bail
was committed to the custody of the
sheriff of this county and is now re
strained of his liberty by that officer
by virtue of such commitment. 1t
is now claimed that the petitioner Is
entitled to his release upon habeas
corpus because he was held to answer
without reasonable or probable cause,
aud in support of his contention he
has produced the testimony taken up
on the exam ination of the charge.
The grantee in the:deed, Mary Bril-
liant Is the same person held to
answer with the petitioner under the
name, Mary Ross. There is no direct
testimony to show whether she is the
wife of the petitioner and no object
ions we're made to the introduction of
statements made by her upon such
ground. 1t does appear from such
statements that she referred to the
petitioner as her husband. and that
prior to or at the time of drawing up
the deed she said her name was Mary
Brilliant. Whether the testimony
proves that she is or is not the wife
OF petitioner is not necessary upon
this hearing to determine.
In ascertaining whether the petl
TONER should be discharged or re-
manded to the custody of the sheriff,
this court 10 restricted entirely to
the testim ony had and taken before
the committing magistrate and that
testimony shows:
That on or about Dec. 6, 1908. Mr.
Mason delivered to the petitioner
and his co-defendant Mary Ross or
Mary Brilliant, the deed in question,
and in payment received from this
petitioner his check for $780, 20. drawn
on the Bank of Amador County, and
payable on Dec. IL, 1908. There is
hearsay evidence by Mr. Mason stat
ing that two or three days after the
delivery of the check and before it
became payable he was informed by
an officer of the bank that there was
no money of petitioner in the bank /;
that it had been drawn out; whether
drawn before or after making the
check does not appear). Mr. Mason
never presented the check at the
bank tor payment either before or
| q flor If hl,nn mo ha "
he was informed by Mrs Ross that
there was no money there.
Subsequently (the exact date does
not appear) Mr. Mason says, that
Mary Ross complained to him that
people we're saying; he had sold pro
perty that was duck pond and that
she was crazy. Thereupon he Mason
offered to return the check and take
offer which was accepted by Mary
Ross, Mr. Mason sought the petitioner
and together they went to the office
of Mr. Snyder, whereupon Mr. Mason
surrendered the check to the petit
toner and received back the deed :,
took it home and placed it in a tin
box.
Afterwards and on Dec. 18th,
according ito tie testimony of Nh
Mason, he was offered $500 for the
property by the petitioner herein
which offer was refused.
1t appears from the testimony of
the county recorder of San Joaquin
county, that on Decem Der Dist he re-
ceived by mail from Mr. Snyder, a
letter with the deed in question,
which deed was on the same day re-
corded
Mr. Mason never removed the deed
from his box nor did he know what
had become of it until he ascertained
it had Eeen filed for record, nor did
he have any information as to who or
by whom it had been taken from the
box until Dec. oath, when Mary Ross
confessed to him that she had taken
it.
So far the only evidence tending
to connect this petitioner with the
transaction. is: That he gave a check
in payment for the deed to Mary
Brilliant; that at the same time he
and Mary Brilliant or Mary Ross,
whatever her name may be, received
such deed; that subsequently, after
Mary Ross had made complaint to Mr.
Mason, that people said she was
crazy, aud that the property was a
duck pond, petitioner went with Mr.
Mason to the office of Mr. Snyder and
there re-delivered the deed to Mr.
Mason and received back his check;
that afterwards and before the deed
was recorded he offered Mr. Mason
$500 for tho property. In addition
there Is the hearsay testimony of
Mr. Mason TO the etfeat that two or
three days before the check became
due he was told there was no money
there; that it had been drawn out,
and his (Mr Mason) testimony that
Mrs Ross had said to him that the
check would not be paid, there was
no money there.
1t will be observed that Mr. Mason
never presented the check to the bank
after it became due, and there is no