USA > California > Nevada County > History of Nevada County, California; with illustrations descriptive of its scenery, residences, public buildings, fine blocks, and manufactories > Part 23
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67
BREW HOUSE.
FERMENTING CELLAR.
CITY BREWERY
BREWERI,
RESIDENCE ,
OF THOS . HODGE & CO. GRASS VALLEY, NEVADA, CO, CAL.
PUBLISHED BY THOMPSON & WEST.
101
HISTORY OF NEVADA COUNTY CALIFORNIA.
that criminal case. The justice did not know that it was a show case, and probably would not have stood it if he lial The political prestige was gained by Sarl, who was elected.
Among the commen celibres occurring in early times was one of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, brought by one fuetion of a church in Nevada city against another faction, which had takeu possession of the church office, and hell it to the exclu sion of the complaining bretheru. The case was tried before Justice 1. P. Van Hagen, u wenk, amiable ohl man, and by jury. The proceedings were turned to a ridiculous farer from the start by the unfortunate l'uet that the proseenting lawyer was excessively inebriated, and the other lawyers were not far behind in that regard. The justice sat behind a light pine table. The prosecutor, in arguing law points to the justice, and especially that he shouldl " go to jail with my brother Thayer," whom he believed the court intended to commit for cont int. notwithstanding the court's disclaimer of such intention, wonhi strike the Table heavily with a hook, and make it dance alnost to the judicial nose. "Do not point my table, Mr. Dann," said the justice. " Muy it. please your honor, I will pound your table," said D,, hitting it a blow that made the frail article of furniture skip again. A few days before D. had had a dog case before the same justice, the decision in which did not please him. Alhiding to that ense he said, " I dreamed a dream the other night, that an old fool of a justice decided that a dog is property." | Whack.] " Don't pound my table, Mr. D." " May it, please your honor [ whack ]. I will pound your table" | Whack. ] Here one of the jurymen said, " We have had enough of this sort of thing. I have something better to du than to listen to this drunken gabble." "Yans, you have, have you?" said D, with a sneer, " Who are you? Know it all, don't yon ?" The other lawyers had been grinning, and rather helping out the absurdity of the thing; bul this intervention was too much for them, and they thought it necessary to frown down furth r levity. The ease proceeded until it came to D.'s turn to address the jury, when he began as follows: " Gentlemen of the jury; and when I say ' Gentlemen of the jury,' I mean eleven of you; for there is one of you who is very far from being a gentleman" Here the juror who had eriticised D.'s conduet of the case jmuped up and pulled off his coat, to give him a thrashing. Peace was restored with great difficulty, and the ease concluded.
It is only fair to Mr. Dunn to remark that his cceentricities, when under the influenee of liquor, color the memories of him, perhaps to the unjust exclusion of other more worthy impres- sions. llis practice was large, and he was quite successful in conducting il. He was understood to be serupulously and even belligerently faithful to his clients, and his convivial habits were broken by long spells of sobriety. He was not the greatest toper at the Nevada bar, but was probably the most eccentric man when inebriated. That liquor was a potent agent in driv-
ing. or obstructing the legal machine, numberless stories in iln tration might be relatarl
In 1533 a nest remarkable scene where liquor was an active agut was enacted in Justice John Little's court, at Rough and Realy William Watt had braten a set of mining chain . in Boston Rasing and his right was disputed by a combination who claimed the whole ravine. Dibble was attorney for the combi- nation, and it was not believe possible to win a mining case against him in Grass Valley. Watt was sued and got a change of vene to Rough and Realy. His lawyers were , Conn and W. M. Stewart. The other side had E. W. Roberts, 11. 1. Gardiner and A. B. Dildde. The court roman was a small spaer partitioned off' from Si. Brown's saloon. It was stipulated in the case, as neither party wished to appear mean, that all the liquors imlibed by the court, jury, parties, lawyers aml out- sidors, should be charged as costs, and abide the result of the suit : The plaintiff's proceeded with their ense, and quite lib- eral use of the resources of the lar was made by all hands. When it came to defendant's turn it was found that the main witness, an old Scotchman, had been made staggering drunk, as it was suspected, by the other side; and was in such a wihl, crazy condition, that it seemed doubtful if he would get to his senses in a week. The only chance for the defendant, it was concluded, was to break the whole thing up in a row, and for that the materials were abundant. A big Kentuckian and as big New Yorker, on the jury, were pretty far gone, and cael boasted of his native State, and came near fighting the thing out, then and there. The court took a recess until evening. When it again met the jury were in such a condition that the plaintiff's wanted to adjourn until morning. Stewart said, " No; if getting folks drunk is your game, there will be enough of it," and audaciously argued to the Justice that if an adjourn- ment were had the verdict would be good for nothing." The stupid old Justice, who was trying his first case, accepted this view of the law, and refused to adjourn. The defendant put in some formal testimony, but the important witness was horx du combat, and the jury were so drunk that it made little dif- ference. Roberts commeneed the argument, and was followed by Conn, the jury drinking all the time to their hearts' con- tent, in which they were cneouraged by suggestion and exam- ple from defendant's side. Gardiner followed, and then Stew- art, exhausting most of the night. When Dibble came to speak some of the jurymen told him to "dry up," and some got to disputing with each other and giving the lie. They were too drunk to hurt each other. When the jury retired, they asked for whisky. "Yes," said defendant's lawyers, "that is in the stipulation," and a demijohn was sent out with them. The next morning's sun saw the jury lying loose all round town. They had separated without agreeing on a verdict. This was what the defendant's side had intended when it was found
the principal witnes had been reduced. By the law in those days. in case of mis-trial, the plaintiff had to pay all costs Infore he could have another trial The easts were fourteen hundred dollars, twelve hundred of which were for lignors at Si Brown's har The plaintiff were not able to pay the hill and were sold out for costa Watt kept his claims on Boston Raving, and this was his first start in Nevada county. He subse- quently beenme a wealthy aml influential citizen of Grass Vul- ley, prominent for years in all political contests, was elected to the State Senate, and was killed sano years since by being thrown from his buggy on the Eureka road. His popularity was very great and his generosity a proverb, His untimely death was a cause of general sorrow
In 1559, Alexander Lones sued a military company nt Nevada, called the Nevada Rifles, for rent of their urmory, at. the corner of Main and Connnercial streets, Flurshurtz, a Inever, had owned the building and rented it to the company. He mortgaged it to Lones, who foreclosed and bought in the property, of which he took a kind of forcible possession. Ile afterwards brought this suit to recover rent, Rufus Shoemaker, County Clerk, and at one time editor of the Grass Valley Union, a portly gentleman, was captain of the company. Beklen drew the following answer, which is inserted in Inll without apology for its length, as it is replete with bumur. Hank Knorr was a member of the Rifles, and signed ax attorney, though not n lawyer, as any one conkl practice in Justices' Courts. " Peter Mushaway, Esq.," referred to in the answer, was a well known local character, half pauper and wholly buunner. The " King of Pungo" was 1. 2. Malbon, first city marshal. The exhibits were prepared by John Patti son, the local Nast, and were drawn on yellow paper, with proper embellishments. The case was tried before Justice E. W. Smith and appealed to the County Court, among the records of which the pleadings may be seen by the curious to this day. The reader will notice that, with all the extravagant humor of the answer, the pleader kept an eye to a good defense :
Before E. W. SMITH, J. F., 1
Nevada Township and County. S
State of California, County of Nevada: HI. A. Lones, Plaintiff,
Rufus Shoemaker, et al., Defendants. )
Now comes Henry Knerr, especially retained for this cause, and answering personally and severally for each of the defend- ants therein sued, shows to this Court that the judicial iniquity of this attempt of plaintiff is unparalleled ant bis impudence unprecedented in the history of men. Defendants further show through the said Knerr, their learned counsel, that language and the forms of speech are unable to convey their true feelings and the wrongs they have suffered at the hands of this plaintiff;
102
HISTORY OF NEVADA COUNTY. CALIFORNIA
where fore the defendants refor this Court to the everal exhib u appended to and accompanying thi an wr and role part thereof. Tuy sony first each and every material al gati of plaintiff' complaint, and they als take this opportunity of expre ing their a toni hivetet at the por loliquity of plaintiff which induces him to make sich statement They refor him to the case of Anmining and Sapphire his wife Ist l'aul ara proofout in point med a whole me warning to this plaintiff. Having thus generally an word, defendants by their sail counsel, Knorr, proceed to particularize, and they deny that sand plaintiff now is, of ever was the owner of the certain house upon Main street ; but defendants say that said plaintiff's pes- version of said promises was most violent and summary, as wil more Fully appear by reference to Exhibit A, hereby referred to no monde part of this answer. Wherefore those defendants way that our Mr Flurschutz, a gentleman of Tentonic extraction, in the owner of said promises, and that he doth likewise can- ponad a very refreshing beverage called lager ber. And these dofondants say that they have, for a long time, to wit, for the period of three years, paid their rent to the said Flurshutz in scull motors, to wit, in sans amounting to one and two bits.
And defendants, further answering, say that they have not legend the said promises of the plaintiff, nor do they hold the Anie, nor have they held the same nudler him, nor have they in any way attorned to lam for the use of the same. But defendants show that said pluintitl has often attempted to lease said promises to these defendants, and to induce said defendants to attorn to him, the said plaintiff, as landlord, as will wore clearly appear loy reference to Exhibit B, made part of this unswer. But defendants suy that, tirin in their integrity of purpose, nuseduced by flattery, as undismuyed by disaster, they lave ever resisted his importimities ; that they have never recognized him as their landlord, and that, completely disgusted with his present course, it is their settled intention to never recognize him in any capacity whatever. And the defendants further show that during the term and time in which said plaintiff charges these defendants with the occupation of said premises, the same were held and occupied under a lease from said plaintiff by one Madmin Clark as a daneing school, and that these defendants were evicted and ejected by said Madam Clark, the lessee of said plaintiff. These defendants, proceeding to narrate the Facts connected therewith, show that, being naturally men of sanguinary propensities, they did march, arrayed in gorgeous apparel, very wonderful to behokl, and with divers fearful weapons, to the said hinll, to the cud that a certain doughty warrior, one King of Pungo, should instruct them in the slaughter of men. And defendants show that, as they drew near to said hall, they heard music and the sound of revelry, whereupon, with the speed of an antelope, or of divers antelopes, said defendauts did incontinently rush toward said
ball And defen lants show that, as they entered said hall, there cance ert against them divers women, as more fully appears by Exhibit C' No. I, hereby referred to as part of this answer And de femlants show that lofore they could get up to their muskets, they were disponesessel, evicted and ejected from said premios, as most especially appears from said Exhibit ' No. 2. whereby defendants say they suffered great loss in uniform, munitions of war, wind and tuition in the art of strategic warfare, to have been given by the aforesaid King.
And defendants further answering, show that during the terms of said occupancy, as sued upon by said plaintiff, said premises and building were out of repair and inaccessible, on account of the ruinous condition thereof, and that said defend- ants were utterly unable to occupy the same on account of their ruinous condition, and that the said plaintiff did suffer and permit said premises to thus become untenantable, well knowing the condition thereof; and defendants aver that, although as brave as lions, they are as wise as serpeuts, and well knowing the premises, and that if the premises fell upon said defendants, there would not be a grease spot left of any one, save and except their captain, said defendants did with great courage, but some haste, retreat from said building. And defendants show that the weapons and munitions of war owned by these defendants, and in said buikling, would have been utterly lost and destroyed but for the exertions of a certain courageous individual, P. Mushaway, Esq., said Musli- away removing, at the peril of his life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the said munitions of war and commissary stores therefrom, said Mushaway being hereby referred to by these defendants as Exhibit E, and made part of this answer. Said defendants further refer to Exhibit D, herewith filed, as more fully explaining the condition of said premises and the exer- tions of said Mushaway. And defendants further refer to Nos. 1 and 2 of Exhibit E, as more fully explaining the condition of said premises, the whole thereof being hereby made part of this answer.
And defendants show that, in consequence of the condition of said premises, these defendants have suffered loss and injury in the sum and to the amount of seven thousand four hundred i and thirty-eight dollars and eighty-one cents, in manner and forin following. to wit: These defendants show that during the year 1858, the Indians upon the frontiers of California, and in the neighboriug State of Oregon, did proceed to kill and mas- sacre the white population then and there living. See Senator Gwin's letter to Mr. Buchanan, hereby referred to and made part of this answer. And these defendants show that had said defendants been sufficiently trained in the art and science of war, these said defendants would have been employed by the Government to exterminate said Indians. And said defendants show that they are informed and verily believe that had they
taken the field, said Indians would now be extinct and wiped out, and that the feats of horrid war performed by these defendants would have redounded to their glory and the national honor, in the sum above set forth. And defendants refer this Court to Exhibit F, as more fully illustrating the intentions of these defendants, said exhibit being made part of this answer. But defendants show that, upon account of the ruin- ous comlition of said building, defendants were not trained; and not being trained, were not taken; and not being taken, did not perform those feats; whereby they have suffered loss and injury in the sum and to the amount above named.
And defendants finally answering, deny that they are or any of them are indebted to said plaintiff in the sum set forth, or in nuy sun whatever. And they further say that said building was in a ruinous condition, unfit for occupancy, at the times sued upon by said plaintiff, wherefore they pray to be dismissed with costs and money distansements. HENRY KNERR,
Attorney for Defendants.
To the answer were attached ludicrous illustrations of the points made by the document, drawn on yellow paper and marked Exhibits A to F. The exhibits were severally as follows :--
Exhibit A. Represents Flurshutz being cjected at the toe of Lones' boot and endorsed " Foreclosure of Mortgage, Loncs vs. Flnrshutz."
Exhibit B. Represents Loues employing his blandishments to induec ye valiant warriors to accept a lease which he holds in his hand, and is endorsed "Non attornment."
Exhibit C. No. 1 represents Madame Clark confronting the gorgeonsly arrayed militia boys, while No. 2 shows the doughty warriors in full retreat, the valiant King of Pungo descending head foremost from a window, shricking, " Make way for your commanding officer." The whole being endorsed "Dancing School, or the relation of Madame Clark vs the Nevada Rifles."
Exhibit D. Represents the building in the last stages of dissolution with the sign "Look out for falling bricks," and is endorsed " Condition of the building-wall falling-Gregory & Sparks removing-population fenced out-Peter Mushaway Esq., removing the 'munitions of war' with a long pole from the second story window-rats and 'other insects' decamping in haste."
Exhibit E. No. 1, Picture of building cracked and broken, propped up on all sides, endorsed " Appearance of the building at the close of the term of the Rifles' lease. No .. 2 shows a Chinaman in full possession of the few bricks that remain standing."
Exhibit F. Represents the prospective field of combat where the invincible Rifles are exterminating poor Lo, root and branch.
MRS. E.E.FISHER, WATCHES, DIAMONDS & JEWELRY.
18
ano
WALTHAL WATCHCO
9
STORE OF MR$ E.E. FISHER, Nº 18 MILL ST, GRASS VALLEY, NEVADA CO, CAL.
PUBLISHED BY THOMPSON & WEST.
103
HISTORY OF NEVADA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
In 1853 George W. Hall way tried for the murder of certain Chinamen on Greenhorn creek, committed in the act of robbery. He was convicted by Chinese testimony principally. Rev. Mr. Spear, the well known Chinese missionary, acted as interpreter, and the outh was administered in the form which he said would be binding on such witnesses. The case was presented by W. M. Stewart, District Attorney, and the defense conducted by J. R. Mcdonnell. No exception was taken to the wlmission of the testimony of the Chinese witnesses at the trial, and the record contained no evidence, except the Chinese uamnes, that Chinamen had sworn in the case. The defendant was found guilty and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. A prenliarity of its treatment by that trilminal was that the court assumed that the only question in the case was whether or not. Chinew testimony was admissible.
This point, without aid from the record, it raised and decided for itself. It held that the Chinaman is an Indian, and excluded from the witness stand by the law of the State, that, "no bluck, or mulatto person, or Indian shall be allowed to give evidence in favor of, or against, u white man." The ethnologienl reasoning by which the Court arrived at its con- clusions rends curiously enough, but this decision is a standing evidener that the influx of t'hinese was looked upon ut that curly day as a menace to our institutions. Say the Court: " The anommlons spectacle of a distinet people living in our community, recognizing no laws of this State, except through newwity; bringing with them their prejudices and national louds, in which they indulge in open violation of law ; whose mendacity is proverbial ; a race whom nature bas marked as inferior, and who are ineupuble of progress or intellectual development beyond a certain point, as their history has shown ; differing in language, opinions, color and physical conforma- tion, between whom aml ourselves nature bas placed an impas- siblo difference, is now presented, and for them is chainned, not only the right to swear away the life of a citizen, but the further privilege of participating with us in administering the ulluirs of the Government."
The ekler Inwyers of the Nevada bar remember that a closely contested ense, which might have turned either way on the merits, was lost by a witnes over-swearing himself. Some valuable mining claims were in question and the right depended largely on priority of location. After a fair case for the plaintiff had coneluded the defendant introduced among other witnesses one who swore to defendant's location. The testimony proceeded very smoothly until it came to cross-examination, when the plaintiff's lawyer led the witness back over his testi- mony, asked him if the notice produced was the original notice, who put it up, where he got his tacks, ete. The witness swore to putting up that notice, and gave all the particulars. He recognized the notiec; was positive of that.
Lawyer. Do you recognize it by the handwriting? Witnem Yes, sir.
1. 1- it your handwriting?
Hesitatingly Yes sir
1 .. Where did you write it ?
W. "Still besitating . At- iny cabin
1 .. You are as sure of that as of the rest of your testimony '
11. Flu-hel and embarrassed . Yes, sir.
I .. Mr. Clerk, hand the witness paper and pen. Mr. Wit- ness, write off this notice as I read it to you.
larryer for Defendant 1 object. That is not legitimate cross-examination.
The Court ruled that it was right to test the witness' mem- ory and truth by the means proposed, and ordered the witness to write as directed.
The too-willing witness was here compelled to admit that he could not write even his name. In his eagerness to help his side he had been betrayed into assuming too much. Of course, his testimony, however true it might otherwise le, was hell as worthless, and as no other witness could testify to the date of location, defendants' case went by the board. The jury hardly left their seats to arrive at a verdict.
A somewhat similar story is related of the practice of Lord Erskine. He was opposing the proof of a will. The subseril)- ing witness described the scene of the execution of the will by the deceased. Erskine asked him if the deceased signed with his own hand; if he sealed with his own hand; where the wax was gut; where the taper to light it; who held the candle, etc. The witnesses tohl where the wax and candle to melt it were brought from; that he held the candle and saw the wax melted on the document and impressed with his own seal by the deceased; when Erskine held up the will and showed to the Court that a wafer and not wax was used in its execution.
In June, 1856, Amos T. Laird and Thomas Chambers eon- tracted with Moore & Foss, saw mill men, to construct a damn forty feet high on Deer creek several miles above Nevada ('ity. There was a flat above the gorge in the creek where the dam was to be erected, and such a damn would flood about an hun- dred acres. The purpose was to hold back the water for use in mining during the summer. The dam was built of logs and timber set on end so as to bear against the pressure, and sheathed with plank. Of course it gave way as soon as it began to get full of water, which it did on the 15th of the fol- lowing February, during a sudden storm and freshet. The accumulated water rushed with great force down the creek and swept away all the buildings on the margin of the stream at the Main and Broad street bridges, as well as doing other damage. A large number of suits grew out of this occurrence, in which Laird & Chambers and Moore & Foss were joined as I defendants. The plaintiffs recovered damages in the District
Court, but the Supreme Court held that, as Moore & Foss were independent contractor, and bad undertaken to make a suf- ficient dam, after their own plans, and the work had not been finished or acceptal, they alone were responsible for the dam- agnes. As Laird & Chambers were the only premiarily respon- silde parties, the decision left the plaintiff's out and injured to the extent of their loses by the blood and raste of litigation.
Litigation was wagel for a good many years between the Sonth Ynba Canal Company and A. T. Inind, for the water of Deer creek, each chiming priority. The numerous suite were carried on by the respective parties at great expense of com and profanity.
In 1860, a party of men robbed Weiss' store on Bear river. They went to the store just after dark, bound the persons they found there, and helped themselves to such salunddes as they desired. Ed. Briscoe was indieted by the following Grand Jury as one of the roldwra, and attempted to prove au aliti by Saudy Allerton, one Vorath and one Jacobs, who lived in a cabin on Gold Flat, und ostensibly followed charcoal burning for a living. The case was prosecuted by F. W. Mazlin, District Attorney, assisted by A. A. Sargent. The prosecution insisted on exam ining the three witnesses to the alili separately and without the hearing of each other. Each of them testified that. Briseor slept in their cabin the night of the robbery. If this was true Briscoe could not have participated in the crime. The prosecu- tion asked but one question of rach : " With whom did Briscoe sleep that night !" Allerton replied, "With me, in my bunk." Vorath said, " In a separate roman, in his blank - ets, on the floor." Jacobs said, " He slept with me in my bunk." No credit could be given to such testimony aud the alibi failed to save the defendant. But a short time after Briscoe had been safely lodged in the State's prison, a robbery took place of Jack Goodman's sluices on Gold Flut, and Brisco's three friends were suspected of bring the robbers, They were arrested, and under a stone in the cabin, a lot of gold dust was found tied up in a watch pocket that had evidently been ent from a pair of pants. The pocket was taken to the jail and found to fit exactly the remaining cloth where the watch pocket had been eut from Vorath's pantaloons. The weather was frosty and the foot prints of the robbers were left around the slices, One boot heel mark attracted especial attention, as one side of it was deeply indented and showed coarse nails. A boot belonging to Jacobs, with a beel tapped by himself, just fitted this mark. But, to conclusively prove the guilt of the defendants, the prose- cuting counsel, who were the same as in the preceding case, called all the bankers in town, who were familiar with the gold dust from all the localities for miles around, and they examined the dust found in the cabin with a microscope, identified it by certain bits of rose quartz sticking to it, and by its general qualities, as gokl from the Goodman diggings, which resembled
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.