Amador ledger. (Jackson, Amador County, Calif.) 1875-19??, 1910-01-14
What Sheriff Gregory
Went to Texas for

In answer to your question "where
we're you and upon what business during
your absence" my answer is:
went TO San Angelo, Texas, in the in
terst of the prosecution in the case of
the state of Texas VS.. II. B. Knowles,
charged with perjury. The facts in the
case are as follows. In the year 1893
Knowles sold valuable jack to one
Vrooman, and soon thereafter Knowles
stole the same jock from large pasture
where Vrooman had put the animal and
run the Jack off to another county and
sold it. Knowles then came back TO
San Angelo and took common burro,
worth So or $40, and killed or crippled
it, and then placed it on the railroad
track. Knowles then informed Vrooman
that the train had run over and killed
the fine jack that he (knowles) had sold
him. Vrooman sued the railroad, and
on trial Knowles swore that the jack
that was on the railroad track was Vroo-
man s-the valuable one that Knowles
had sold to Nrooman. The railroad
detective afterwards found Vrooman's
jack in Jones county, where Knowles
hao sold it, and Knowles was indicted
for perjury by the grand jury. Knowles
gave bonds in the sum OF $4,000, which
he forfeited, and came to West Point IN
Calaveras county, CAL where he kept
saloon for short time. He then went
to Nashville, in Ell Dorado county, and
engaged in the same business under the
lame Of j. N. Padget.
On the night of September |, Padget
murdered John Smith, n year old half
breed Indian at Nashville, and escaped
and fled to Alaska where he went under
the name of Marley Last year Know
les was taken back to Texas from
Seattle to answer to the old perjury
charge. He gave bail again, and again
forfeited it not, appearing for trial at
the May term of this district court, but
he showed up again in San Angelo just
prior to the December term of court and
demanded trial.
In Texas the Indictment expires in
three years if the defendant is in the
state and can be brought to trial.
Knowles claimed to have been in Texas
all that time, whereas in truth and in
fact he was in California, and it was
necessary TO prove that fact, and the
witnesses from California were taken
there for the purpose of identifying
defendant. Upon seeing him they
positively recognized him as the man
Padget who was here in 1894 and 1895,
and as the man who murdered Smith on
the 18th day of September, 1895, at
Nashville.
The trial came on, the jury was i'm
paneled and the prosecution had ample
testimony to secure a conviction but
fortunately for Knowles and unfortunate
ly for the state the defense discovered
clerical error in the Indictment and
after three days argument the judge
ruled against the state, quashing the
main counts in the Indictment and in
structed the jury to acquit the defendant
| thereupon wired to the authorities of
FL Dorado county, asking them if they
wanted the man, but received no reply.
Since my return home have been in
formed that the district attorney of Ell
Dorado county has the matter under ad-
visement, and will soon determine
whether he will extradite Knowles for
the Ell Dorado crime.
| found while in Texas that Knowles
has previous bad record, being charged
with the murder of an old Mexican
Sheepherder in 1890 in Scheicher
county, Texas, and suspicioned of
various other crimes. 1t seems too bad
that such criminal should go I'M
punished, and hope and believe that
he will yet be compelled to face trial for
some of his crimes
U. S. GREGORY,
ShariH