Butte Record

COURT OF SESSIONS.

February 12.

Court met and organized Grand Jury by appointing H. J. Morrison Foreman.

Court orders that the Assessment vs. the Anglo Gold Mining company, near Hansonville, be placed upon the Assessor's books.

Court allows and orders paid to N. M. Meadors, $10 for book furnished for assessor's use. Also orders County Surveyor to purchase book for office.

Allows and orders paid in cash $147. to F. Paige, for desk furnished county.

Court orders election in Hamilton township on second Saturday in March, for 1 Justice of the Peace and 1 Constable.

Court orders County Treasurer to draw school monies due the county from the State, also indigent sick fund.

Court makes order creating two road districts and appointing road supervisors as follows:

1st. Road District, O. M. Evans: 2nd do Randall Hobart; 3d do, Jas. Dunn. 4th do, Henry U. Brown; 5th do John D. Worden : 6th do James L. Henshaw: 7th do T. S. Wright ; 8th do William Mayhew; 9th do Henry J. Morrison : 10th do A. B. Newcomb : 11th do David Pierson.

Renewal of license was granted to White & Nutter, to run ferry at Potter's Bar for one year.

In the case of the People vs. Lewis Matteson, the defendant was discharged.

The most interesting item amongst the business at the present term of the Court was the trial of fourteen Chinamen, indicted for resisting an officer and assaulting and beating him. The case was entitled "The People, vs. Ah Chum, Ah Hea, Ah Voo, Ah Cue, Ah Lock, Ah You, Ah Kam. Ah Hoe, Ah You, Ah Wan, Ah Quen, Ah Chum, Ah Apat, Ah Shup. Plea not guilty. W. T. Sexton, District Attorney, P. H Harris. and R. C. Baker. for defendants.

Considerable amusement was afforded the spectators in which the court and bar participated somewhat, by the Sheriff and clerk calling the names of the defendants and their responding.

The Jury being empanneled, the first witness called was R. R. Chappell, who testified that he was a Deputy Sheriff of Butte County and collector of foreign miners' tax, that about the middle of December past, he went to a camp in the vicinity of Forbestown where he found a number of Chinamen. He informed them that he was a collector of Foreign miners' tax, and demanded theirs for one month. They said they had no money, when he said to them that he must take their tools and sell them. They then produced some licenses, six of which had not yet expired, and they paid for a part of the remainder, and promised that they would pay the balance the next morning. The following morning witness went again to their camp accompanied by two other citizens of Forbestown, and again demanded their tax--the Chinamen refused to pay and upon his informing them that he must levy upon and sell their tools, said they would shoot him if he did. He then proceeded to take some of their tools, having first given his revolver into the hands of one of the men accompanying him. At this the Chinamen began to make a demonstration to resist and rushed upon Deputy Sheriff Chappell, and upon the man who had the revolver--they being armed with poles, picks, &c.--when the man having the revolver fired twice, one ball taking effect and wounding Chinaman. At this period, both the men accompanying Mr. Chappell fled, and the Chinamen greatly excited rushed upon him, striking him with clubs, and rendering him for a short time partially insensible. They then bound him with ropes and tied him to their tent post.

On the witness being asked if he could identify any of the defendants present as the ones engaged in the assault, replied that he could, and pointed out several. Here commenced quite an amusing episode. The witness could identify some of the defendants, but could not say whether their names were Ah Chum, Ah You, or Ah Shup, and as defendants had answered to their names in open court, and said they were indicted by their right names, it might be important if the Jury should find that the offence was proved upon some and not upon others. that the names of those identified should be known. Defendant's counsel objected to their being asked their names as they were identified by the witness, as they had plead to the indictment and said they were indicted by their right names, and contended that they could not thus be made to furnish testimony against themselves. After considerable contention by counsel, and the suggestion of different plans, it was ordered by the Court that the clerk call the names of the defendants, and that they take their seats in the order in which they were called, to which the counsel for defendants excepted

There was but one other witness called who corroborated the main facts sworn to by the first witness up to the time of the shooting, and identified some of the defendants.

The case was argued to the jury by the respective counsel, and after a very clear charge by the court the jury retired and after deliberation, returned into court and rendered a verdict of not guilty.

The verdict apparently took all by surprise -the counsel for defendants with the rest. The remark was freely made that if officers in the execution of the law could not be protected by the law, then the six-shooter law must be resorted to, or all laws remain unenforced.

The jury doubtless had reasons for their verdict, and as they were sworn to render a verdict according to law and evidence, we forbear further comment. R.