Copyright
California. Legislature.

Appendix to the Journals of the Senate and Assembly of the ... session of the Legislature of the State of California (Volume 1885v.1) online

. (page 24 of 83)
Online LibraryCalifornia. LegislatureAppendix to the Journals of the Senate and Assembly of the ... session of the Legislature of the State of California (Volume 1885v.1) → online text (page 24 of 83)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


00

on


>


0)


a




<u


a


hi


^


a


^


»— <




1-5 '^




f— 1










TS


Of)


>^


Q)


q>




w.


^ .


«n


1^


S


c3 CO








00












t-,




o ^












§


far


gco


tS


-5 <-i





a^^
o a

£ o6

' E-i-^ CO



a ss -5»
o W a

^ J o

_o CO

3 OJ=
02






^ ,/- -J 2 a

S-2 a g-2
§ ^ S a

o So 02 <l a W



to" t^'



,-. ^ "^ a :



Ph a

03

a &



'ic'^ai'g

c^ ", oj o a

-2 i^ S -2 -3 o '^
o H30<1 ojHtS






-»1 5



«



<p SS -^ a
&• a cs 3 lu ,52 holj

g ©02-5 P,0 &

Ph



-a


an


bO






O c












. o


O Cl


SPh



^ tfj C a, a



g S S <1 S -^ H^ ,S



r-<



'3 a



62



1

1








o

1.1

ig.
1


Transcript filed July 5, 1884.
Judgment and order affirm-
ed December 2, 1884.


Transcript filed July 5, 1884.


Transcript filed July 5, 1884.


5='

s

a
S)

2

o

1


Information filed November 8, 1883.
Verdict May 24, 1884, larceny second
degree. Judgment June 9, 1884,
county jail six months and fine of
$300 or one year additional. Notice
of appeal served and filed June 21,
1884.


Information filed January 19, 1884.
Verdict May 24, 1884, guilty as
charged. Judgment June 10, 1884,
four years. Notice of appeal served
and filed June 11, 1884.


Information filed October 17, 1883.
Verdict May 23, 1884, burglary first
degree. Judgment June 13, 1884,
five years. Notice of appeal servecl
and filed JunclS, 1884.


.2_5
2 °

'~i
s


a

5

_o

E


By information- Having
possession of dies, plates,
etc., made use of in
counterfeiting silver
coin.


By information — Burg-
lary.




"3

a

2
o


"3
a
"5

O


a
1
5


lis

= =1


Superior Court
of San Luis
Obispo Coun-

ty.


Superior Court
of San Luis
Obispo Coun-
ty.


Superior Court
of San Luis
Obispo Coun-
ty.


O

u


20003

People, Respond-
ents, vs. Robert
Righetti, Appel-
lant. Attorney-
General for Peo-
ple, J. M. Wil-
coxson for Ai)pel-
lant.


20004

People, Respond-
ents, vs. William-
Oliver, Appellant.
Attorney-General
for Peojjle, J. M.
Wilcoxson for Ap-
pellant.


20005

People, Respond-
ents, vs. Thomas
Righetti, Appel-
lant. Attorney-
General for Peo-
ple, J. M. Wil-
coxson for Appel-
lant.



63











Transcript filed July 25, 1884.
Judgment reversed, new
trial granted September 23,
1884.


00
00

l-H

00

(M
>,

3

•-5

t3
<D

S5
.&•

u

a

cS
i~>
EH


00
OS
_>>
►^

s

Eh


Transcript filed July 31, 1884.
Judgment and order af-
firmed October 2, 1884.


Information filed February 18, 1884.
Verdict April 23, 1884, guilty as
charged. Judgment May 24, 1884,
six vears. Notice of appeal served
and "filed May 29, 1884.


Information filed May 10, 1884. Ver-
dict June 6, 1884, guilty as charged.
Judgment June 10, 1884, nine years.
Notice of appeal served and filed
July 10, 1884.




Information filed July 7, 1884. Ver-
dict July 10, 1884, guilty burglary
firstdegree. Judgment July 14, 1884,
one year. Notice of appeal served and
filed July 22, 1884.


1

a

^o

a
.a a


"3

1

<

1

a
o

o3 0)

g-p
u ^

|H

■- o


By information.


3

1

a
o

a

pq


a

1
*E
o


a

1 *
o


li

a
1
o


a

a


Superior Court
of San Fran-
cisco.


Superior Court
of Del Norte
County.


Superior Court
of Fresno
County.


Superior Court
of Santa Clara
County.


20006

People, Respond-
ents, vs. John
Shenick, Appel-
lant. Attorney-
General for Peo-
ple, John D.Wha-
ley for Appellant.


20009

People, Respond-
ents, vs. William
H. Bean, Appel-
lant. Attorney-
General for Peo-
ple, S. F. Cooper
for Appellant.


20010

People, Respond-
ents, vs. Patrick
Biggins, Appel-
lant. Attorney-
General for Peo-
ple, W. S. Tupper
for Appellant.


20012

People, Respond-
ents, vs. Fred-
erick Cai-leton, Ap-
pellant. Attor-
ney-General for
People, Lamar <fe
Lay son for Ap-
pellant.



64



1 .

1 1

d

.1 ■






_ .1


Memorandum of Judgment in
Supreme Court.


Transcript filed July 22, 1884.


Transcript filed August 21,
1884.


Transcript filed August 28,
1884. Judgment and order
affirmed for want of appear-
ance on part of appellant,
November 11, 1884.


Stage of Proceedings in Court below.


Information filed January 7, 1884.
Verdict March 1, 1884, guilty as
charged. Judgment March 7, 1884,
three years. Notice of appeal served
and filed July 7, 1884.


Information filed July 5, 1884. Ver-
dict July 31 , 1 884, guilty as charged.
Judgment August 2, 1884, two years.
Notice of appeal served and filed
August 6, 1884.


Information filed January 30, 1884.
Verdict February 22, 1884, guilty as
charged. Judgment March 3, 1884,
sixteen years. Notice of apjJeal
served and filed March 7, 1884.


Mode of Prosecution and
Nature of Crime.


By information — Assault
to murder.


By information — Embez-
zlement.


By information— Rape.


Cliaracter
of Action.


Criminal.


Criminal.


Criminal.




Ill what (Joiiiity
Tried and Ad-
judged.


Superior Court
of Yolo Coun-


Superior Court
of San Joa-
quin County.


Superior Court
of Monterey
County.


Title ok Cavse.


20013

People, Respond-
ents, vs. Edward
Prather, Appel-
lant. Attorney-
General for Peo-
ple, Lamlicrt &
Baker for Appel-
lant.


20018

People, Respond-
ents, vs. J. II.
Tomlinson, Ap-
pellant. Attor-
ney-General for
People, S. L. Ter-
ry for Appellant.


20020

People, etc., Rc-
s]iondents,vs.Wm.
A. Lynn, Appel-
lant. Attorney-
General for Peo-
ple, W. S. Dodge
for Appellant.



65












Transcript filed September 1,
1884. Judgment and order
affirmed for want of appear-
ance by appellant, Novem-
ber 11, 1884.


a
I

1

'a,

'u
a 00
Eh


a
I

1

a <x>

Eh


<u

s

-2

eS
'E

Eh


Information filed March 21, 1884.
Verdict April 18, 1884, guilty burg-
lary first degree. Judgment May
3, 1884, eight years. Notice of ap-
peal served and filed May 29, 1884.


Information filed February 18, 1884.
Verdict April 25, 1884, guilty as
charged. Judgment May 24, 1884,
seven years. Notice of appeal'served
and filed May 26, 1884.


Information filed Ai)ril 15, 1884. Ver-
dict May 13, 1884, guilty as charged.
May 21, 1884, judgment, six years.
Notice of appeal served and filed
May 28, 1884.




By i n formation — Bu rg-
lary.


By information — At-
tempt to commit rob-
bery.


1

a
o

Is
S

u

pq


S3
O

s
<s


a
1


"5
a

s •

O


"3

a

1
*c


a


Superior Court
of San Fran-
cisco.


Superior Court
of San Fran-
cisco.


Superior Court
of San Fran-
cisco.


Superior Court
of Santa Clara
County.


20021

People, etc.. Re-
spondents, vs.
John Blanchford,
Appellant. Attor-
ney-General for

, People,J. A.Spin-
etti for Aj)pellant.


20024

People, etc., Re-
spon(lents,vs. Lee
Ah Chuck, Ap-
pellant. Attor-
ney-General for
People, D. Loud-
erback & G. E.
Harpham for Ap-
pellant.


20026

People, Respond-
ents, vs. Bella
Wilson, Appel-
lant. Attorney-
General for Peo-
ple, M. L. Iloran
for Appellant.


20028

People, Respond-
ents, vs. Ramon
Villarino, Appel-
lant. Attorney -
General for Peo-
ple, John Lucas
for Appellant.



66



1

E •
o








1

ll

o
S


£

o

DO

,2

o .
floe

C5 00


s

a,
u
□Q

tC

T 00

§2
H -

03 o


1
O

.2

.&■


3
a

o

1








■a
5

a 2
.2.2

i!

o


3
1

c
_o

S


-s

3

1
fl

2
S

c
'k


a
.o

g
a


S«3


s


"3
a

1


"3
a
"S


PI


Superior Court
of Los An-
geles County.


Superior Court
of Los Ange-
les County.


Superior Court
of Los Ange-
les County.


P

b

O

H


20031

People, Respond-
ents, vs. Francisco
Martinez, Appel-
lant. Attorney -
General for Peo-
ple, B. T. Carson
for Appellant.


20032

People, Respond-
ents, vs. Adolph
Silvas and Man-
uel Iligucrra, Ap-
pellants. Attor-
ney-General for
People, Z. T. Car-
son for Appellants.


20036

Peo[)le, Respond-
ents, vs. E.Mayes,
Aj)pellant. Attor-
ney-General for
People, Messrs.
King, Gage <fe
Herman and Rob-
arts for Appellant.



67











00

u
<B

1

s

1

.5"

1^

Eh


CO

1

O

1

■&,

'E
S^
a 00


00

u

(D

o
o
O

OJ

'u

^^

a CO
Soo

U t— I


O

o

.&
a CO

eSOO ,


Information filed June 4, 1884. Ver-
dict September 6, 1884, manslaugh-
ter. Judgment, eight years, Sep-
tember 11, 1884. Notice of appeal
served and filed October 1, 1884.






Information filed July 21, 1884.
Verdict September 7, 1884, guilty
as charged. Judgment October 1,
1884, five years. Notice of appeal
served and filed October 6, 1884.


-s

3

1

a

o

■■S

.2

a


d
Is

a




o

i

a

t2
a

>>


a
1
o


1

O


a

1
o


• "3
a

's

o


Superior Court
of Colusa
County.


Superior Court
of San Fran-
cisco.


Superior Court
of San Fran-
cisco.


Superior Court
of Nevada
County.


20039

People, Respond-
ents, vs. Spencer
Swifl, Appellant.
Attorney-General
for People, T. J.
Hart for Appel-
lant.


20040.

People, Respond-
ents, vs. Louis
Weber, Appel-
lant. Attorney-
General for Peo-
ple, Charles B.
Darwin for Ap-
pellant.


20041.

People, Respond-
ents, vs. J. J.
O'Brien, Appel-
lant. Attorney-
General for Peo-
ple, D.J. Murphy
for Appellant.


20043.

People, Respond-
ents, vs. Patrick
Tierney, Appel-
lant. Attorney-
General for Peo-
ple, Cross &
Simonds for Ap-
pellant.



68



fi ^



1


-






a

i.

o 2

1^

o

s
1


!-•

S

a
O

"a,


S

o
O

a,

COO
cjoo
t. I— (
Eh


cT

.a
2

8

.2

«c

a,

h

c3QO

(-1 f-H


stage of Proceedings in Court below.


Information filed April 22, 1884.
Judgment on demurrer sustained
July 15, 1884. Notice of appeal
served and filed September 19, 1884.


Information filed April 22, 1884.
Verdict, none. Judgment on de-.
murrer sustained August 19, 1884.
Notice of appeal served and filed
Sei)tember 18, 1884.


Information filed October 13, 1884.
Verdict October 20, 1884, man-
slaughter. Judgment October 27,
1884, two years. Notice of appeal
served and filed October 27, 1884.


■a
a

eS

c S
.2 S

|g

is

OS

o^

■e
o


s

1

a

S

u

t2
a


3
£

t2


3

1
13

a

a


Character
of Action.


"3

c

1
o


'S
o


Criminal.


In what County
Tried and Ad-
judged,


Superior Court
of Los Ange-
les County.


Superior Court
of Los Ange-
les County.


Superior Court
of Fresno
County.


<
o

O
»


' 20044

People, Appellants,
vs. E. Bcrman,
Respondent. At-
torney - General
for People, J. F.
Godfrey for Ap-
pellant.


20045

People, Apj)cllants,
vs. D. Piatt, Re-
spondent. Attor-
ney - General for
People, Howard
& Roberts and J.
F. Godfrey for
Respondent.


20046

People, Respond-
ents, vs. Jos. F.
Vierra, Appel-
lant. Attorney-
General for Peo-
ple, Tupper &
Tupper for Ap-
pellant.



69









1


1
s

>

1

va

Is
is


a>
S

«3
a -


Transcript filed November
7, 1884.


Transcript filed November
19, 1884.


Information filed October 14, 1884.
Verdict October 21, J884, guilty of
burglary second degree. Judgment
October 26, 1884, one year. Notice
of appeal served and filed October
31,1884.


Information filed July 12, 1884. Ver-
dict September 5, 1884, guilty as
charged. Judgment September 13,
1884, twelve years. Notice of appeal
served and filed September 19, 1884.


Information filed May 3, 1884. Ver-
dict October 24, 1884, guilty of mur-
der first degree. Judgment October
24, 1884, State Prison for life. Notice
of appeal served and filed October
24, 1884.


Information filed July 16, 1884. Ver-
dict August 16, 1884, guilty as
charged. Judgment October 7, 1884,
five years. . Notice of appeal served
and filed October 7, 1884.


s
«

1

a
o

"S
S

a


s

o

i

a

o

"S

a

a
'k


3
1

a
o

i

a


By information — Taking
female from custodian
for purpose of prostitu-
tion.


Criminal.


"3

a

o


"3
a

1


Criminal.


Superior Court
of Santa Cruz
County.


Superior Court
of San Fran-
cisco.


Superior Court
of Colusa
County.


Superior Court
of San Fran-
cisco.


20060.

People, Respond-
ents, vs. Charles
Clark, Appellant.
Attorney-General
for People, Z. N.
Goldsby and J.
M. Lesser for Ap-
pellant.


20061.

People, Respond-
ents, vs. Lucilius
Miller, Appellant.
Attorney-General
for People, Chas.
B. Darwin for Ap-
pellant.


' 20052.

People, Repond-
ents, vs. Herman
Miller. Attor-
ney - Genei-al for
People, Jackson
Hatch and Grove
L. Johnson for
Appellant.


20063

People, Respond-
ents, vs. James
Powellson, Appel-
lant. Attorney-
General for Peo-
ple, D. H. Rcgens-
berger for Appel-
lant.



BIENNIAL REPORT



ADJUTANT-GENERAL



STATE OF CALIFORNIA.



i883 - 84.




STATE OFFICE,



SACRAMENTO:

. . JAMES J. AYERS, SUPT. STATE PRINTING.



1884,



REPORT.



Sacramento, Cal., October 1, 1884.

To his Excellency George Stoneman, Governor and Commander-in-
Chief:

Sir: 1 have the honor to report to your Excellency, as required by
law, a financial statement of the receipts and disbursements of this
department for the thirty -fourth and thirty-fifth fiscal years, ending
June 30, 1884; an account of ordnance, quartermaster, and other mil-
itary property belonging to the State; from whom received, to whom
issued, and amount on hand in the State Armory; the present condi-
tion of such property; the number and condition of the National
Guard, and the enrolled militia of California.

Your Excellency honored me by the appointment as Adjutant-
General, on January 11, 1884; and I assumed the duties of the office
on that date. The National Guard of California, as then organized,
was found to consist of two light batteries of artillery, one Gatling
battery, attached to an infantry company; three companies of cav-
alry; twenty-eight companies of infantry; and two cadet companies —
attached, one each to the First and Second Regiments of Artillery,
respectively; these, with the several staffs, making a grand total of
two thousand six hundred and forty-eight officers, non-commissioned
officers, musicians, and privates. The total number of companies
allowed by law is forty, and, in addition, a company of cadets may be
attached to each regiment, which, as now organized, would be four,
making the maximum limit forty-four. The National Guard was
reduced some eight companies in April, 1881, for the reason, as stated
in general orders of that date, that the amount of the annual appro-
priation, $67,500, was inadequate to pay the number of companies
then in service the amounts made mandatory upon the Board of
Military Auditors.

My first object was to increase the number of companies to the
utmost that the appropriation would pay. Upon a close investigation



8

of the expenditures under my predecessor it was found that by a
careful, and perhaps somewhat illiberal economy, the equalizing the
allowances of the several companies by removing what were clearly
unjust discriminations, by curtailing minor expenditures which in
the aggregate were large, and devoting the allowance for encampments
to the payment of additional companies, the maximum number
allowed by law could be nearly approached if not fully reached.
The Board of Location and Organization of the Second and Fourth
Brigades, at a meeting held in Sacramento June 17, 1883, decided, in
view of the insufficiency of the appropriation, that the general good
of the service demanded that no encampments should be allowed
in 1883 and 1884. It fully recognized the great benefit to military
discipline and knowledge of field service resulting from these encamp-
ments; but reluctantly reached this decision for the following prin-
cipal reasons: Under the present law none but organized regiments
of not less than six companies can claim State aid for an encamp-
ment. As then organized only two of the three regiments entitled to
aid had availed themselves of the privilege, and of these two, much
the smaller regiment was entitled under the law, and had received,
nearly double that of the larger regiment. Should the other regiment
which had hitherto declined to go into camp decide to do so, it would
necessitate a still further reduction in the number of companies.
The unattached companies were barred by the law from claiming
State aid for encampment purposes. In numbers they constituted one
third of the force, the portion, too, which most needed the benefits of
an encampment. Finally, it was clearly and simply a question
whether the money should be expended for an encampment of only
about two thirds of the National Guard for eight days, or whether it
should be used in payment of the monthly demands of companies to
be added to it. The latter was so palpably in the general interest of
the service that it was so decided, and an order to that effect was
issued June 18, 1884.

The Board also cut' down the monthly allowance of five companies
of the First Artillery Regiment of one hundred and twenty-five dol-
lars each to one hundred dollars, thereby abolishing the unjust dis-
crimination in their favor as against the Second Artillery Regiment
and the other infantry companies in the service. These regiments
are only nominally artillery, being armed and drilled as infantry,
and differing only in dress.

By changes made in its strength during my term of office which
will be stated in detail further on, and, as now organized, the National
Guard consists of two light batteries, one Gatling battery, two com-
panies of cavalry, thirty-five companies of infantry, and three com-
panies of cadets attached to the First and Second Artillery Regiments
and Third Infantry Regiment. AVith one more cadet company this
would be the maximum strength allowed by law.

With the exception of a few dollars deduction in the annual allow-
ance of the several companies, all the claims mandatory upon the
Board of Auditors have been paid, and without a deficiency in this
department.

The amount due the United States by the Military Department of
this State, was, on July 1, 1882, $15,886 20, and not, as erroneously
stated by my predecessor, $11,523 94 ; this latter sum was the amount of
the State's credit with the United States, while it was indebted to the



9

United States by purchase $27,410 14, the difference being the balance
due by the State of $15,886 20. No purchases have been made by this
department since that time. Our annual State quota under the last
apportionment is |3,990 02, and the State is entitled to a credit of its
two years quota of $7,980 04, leaving it indebted to the United States
June 30, 1884, $7,906 14.

Since 1808, Congress has annually appropriated $200,000 to be dis-
tributed among the several States, according to the number of their
Senators and Representatives, for the purchase of arms and equip-
ments. At the last session of Congress a bill was introduced increas-
ing this amount to $600,000. As it appeared to meet with very little
opposition and failed of passage only by not being reached, it is
hoped that it will become a law at the ensuing session. Under the
provisions of this bill a large part of the State's increased quota could
be expended in the purchase of uniforms; this would materially
enlarge the number of recruits, many now being deterred from enlist-
ing by reason of its expense. ■ Such financial assistance would in
many other respects stimulate to increased activity and efficiency.

ORDNANCE PROPERTY.

Table "C," appended hereto, gives a detailed account of arms and
equipments received, issued, and remaining on hand in the State
Armory. The general condition of these arms, etc., is good. The
National Guard is now armed with breech-loading Springfield rifles,
cal. 45. There are on hand seven hundred and eighty-one muzzle-
loading Springfield rifles and carbines in good condition, but the pat-
tern is old and not desirable for issue except in case of emergency.
Of the eighteen field pieces on hand, the six Gatlings are alone adapted
to this service; the brass pieces, and especially the six Parrott guns and
their caissons, are j)ractically worthless, being much too heavy and
otherwise unwieldy. With your approval I made an earnest effort to
get, through our Representatives, congressional authority to the Secre-
tary of War to receive back these pieces and either exchange for them
such light guns as were adapted to our wants, or to have their value
credited upon the State's indebtedness. The reason why such a res-
olution, if offered, in Congress failed has not been explained. An-
other similar effort, and it is hoped a successful one, will be made.

quartermaster's stores.

The saddles and bridles on hand are in good condition and in suf-
ficient quantity for any probable demand. Tfie camp equipage as
regards tents is insufficient in number. Of those on hand a large
part are much worn, and we are entirely unsupplied with other
camping outfits, such as spades, axes, hatchets, cooking utensils, etc.
These have been supplied at the expense of the commands which
encamped.

condition op the n. g. c.

Since assuming the duties of this office, all the companies of the
National Guard, with the exception of three, have been inspected



10

both by myself and Assistant Adjutant-General, Colonel J. J. Tobin.
These inspections have been either special or general, and have, in
the main, been highly satisfactory. Several reviews, and other mili-
tary displays, also one brigade drill, have taken place, in which a
large part of the force has participated. At most of these your Excel-
lency was present, either as reviewing officer or spectator, and ex-
pressed yourself as much pleased and surprised by the steadiness of
their marching, neatness, and soldierly bearing, giving the best evi-
dence of the careful instruction of their officers. My inspections of
the unattached companies were especially gratifying. These are the
Eagle Corps, located at Los Angeles, under command of Captain Rus-
sell, a capable officer of experience who served through the late civil
war; the Chico Guard, located at Chico, under command of Captain
H. T. Batchelder, an earnest and efficient officer; the Stockton Guard,
located at Stockton, and the San Diego City Guard, respectively under
the command of Captains Eugene Lehe and Douglas Gunn, both
active and zealous officers of long experience. Their armories were
found to be in excellent order, and the State property (in each case in
charge of an old soldier) was properly cared for — their system of
accounts was clear and accurate — the drill and their personnel and
membership were specially satisfactory. I recognize that great credit
is due these companies, as their field for enlistment is small, nor do
they have the stimulus of rivalry and the large attendance always
present in large cities on occasions of parade and ceremony.

Their large membership and excellent condition afford signal evi-
dence of the zeal and ability of their officers. These remarks are
equally applicable to Companies A, B, C, and D, which are severally
located at Oakland, San Jose, Petaluma, and Vallejo, but organized
as the Fifth Infantry Battalion, under the command of Lieutenant-
Colonel H. D. Ranlett, an able, zealous, and experienced officer, who
has been untiring in his efforts to bring his command to its present
state of efficiency. The Second Brigade, composed of the Second Artil-
lery Regiment, Colonel W. R. Smedberg, First and Third Regiments
of Infantry, under command of Colonels J. H. Dickinson and Robert
Tobin, respectively, and the San Francisco Hussars, Captain C. C.
Keene, stationed in San Francisco, Company A, of the Fifth Bat-
talion, Captain T. H. Thompson, and Oakland Light Cavalry, Cap-
tain Pearce, located in Oakland, is, as a body, in excellent condition
as regards discipline and drill. Under the able administration of its
experienced brigade and regimental officers, it is well up to the stand-
ard, with the exception that the strength of some of the companies
is below the minimum prescribed by law, and unless they can be
recruited up to it, will be recommended to you for disbandment.
This necessity would be deplored, as some of them are, in other
respects, among the best in the service. Companies A, B, E, and G,



Online LibraryCalifornia. LegislatureAppendix to the Journals of the Senate and Assembly of the ... session of the Legislature of the State of California (Volume 1885v.1) → online text (page 24 of 83)