The Case of the Misidentified Robbers
Two men accused of assaulting a storekeeper in Palmer are discharged after the victim fails to identify them; the judge notes the evidence was practically nonexistent.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
G. J. De Cordova and Alma Grozier, charged with being implicated in the assault on John Peterson, the storekeeper at Palmer on March 31, which led to the killing of Robert Calhoun by James Gill, were brought before Justice Caldwell yesterday for a hearing and were discharged on the ground that the identification was insufficient. John Peterson, when on the stand, could not swear that the prisoners were the men who attacked him. He believed they were the parties because one wore a black hat and the other a white one, but he did not get a chance to see their faces. Justice Caldwell then said: 'I would not convict a yellow dog on the evidence introduced, and it is my duty to discharge the prisoners.' De Cordova testified he and his cousin were merely riding a freight train to find work when they were apprehended.
“I would not convict a yellow dog on the evidence introduced.”
This case highlights the rough-and-tumble justice system of late 19th-century Washington, where vigilante-style posses were common and judicial proceedings often hinged on flimsy, circumstantial identification.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.