bogleheader

KILLER DOCTOR

The eyewitness heard the first shot and turned to look up the side street. He saw the doctor standing on the sidewalk and pointing his pistol at a man across a backyard fence as more shots were fired in rapid succession. The victim slumped to the ground while the doctor pocketed the gun and headed downtown. Someone who passed him thought he was whistling.

This unfortunate event happened on a cool April evening in 1900, near the corner of (modern day) Seventh and Mendocino. The shooter was Dr. Samuel S. Bogle, a 32 year-old physician who had been in Santa Rosa less than two years. The victim was James M. Miller, a Civil War veteran aged 60 who owned a paint and wallpaper store across from the courthouse.

Neighbors who heard the shots rushed to help Miller, carrying him into his house. “I’m done for, I’m done for,” Miller said. “Why should a man treat me like that after what I’ve done for him? If I get up out of this I’ll fix him.”

By this time, the eyewitness had reached the office of Dr. Jesse a couple of blocks away. When the doctor was told the shooting involved Bogle and Miller he presumed it was Bogle who had been shot – Miller had blabbing all over town that he was going to “fix” Bogle for not paying a bill.

(RIGHT: Dr. S. S. Bogle c. 1908)bogle1908

Meanwhile, Bogle had arrived at the sheriff’s office, where he went to surrender and turn over his gun. No deputies were present at the time so he gave himself up to the county jail’s cook. He also visited his lawyer (a former state senator) and by the end of the evening was arraigned and freed on $10,000 bail.

On the advice of his attorney Bogle didn’t speak to reporters, but the Press Democrat still cobbled together a story which was summarized by the San Francisco papers and wire services.

The PD wrote that Bogle passed Miller’s sideyard as he was walking downtown after supper. (Bogle and Miller were next door neighbors, a coincidence which had nothing to do with the bad blood between them.) Miller was outside and saw him. Insults were passed and Miller rushed toward the gate with a knife in his hand. Bogle pulled his gun and fired, striking Miller twice.

Dr. Jesse told the paper Miller was expected to survive. He had a flesh wound on a forearm and the other bullet hit the middle of his left hip, passing between the tail bone and top of the femur before exiting the other side above his groin.

But Dr. Jesse was wrong. Miller died three days later of peritonitis, the bullet having punctured his intestines. Bogle was rearrested and charged with murder.

miller1900(RIGHT: James M. Miller. San Francisco Call, April 29, 1900)

The dispute between Bogle and Miller began a week or more earlier. Before buying the paint store, Miller was the owner of the Santa Rosa Stables where Dr. Bogle frequently rented a horse and buggy to visit patients. Bogle had a charge account there, and Miller did not close the accounting book promptly after selling the business; by the time he got around to it, Dr. Bogle had treated the wife of one of Miller’s paint store employees. As the livery bill was about $20 and the medical bill was about $20, they agreed to call it even-stevens – Miller would just take the twenty out of the painter’s salary.

But before that happened the painter “lost his position,” which presumably meant Miller fired him. In Miller’s view, this meant Bogle now owed him the money, and he demanded it be paid at once.

Gentle Reader’s eyeballs are now probably rolled so far back that they risk being permanently stuck. “All of this was over a lousy TWENTY BUCKS?” Yes, but remember it was 1900 – the average worker’s paycheck was less than $13 a week, and the modern relative wage of that works out to about $2,200 today (see discussion).

When the case came to trial there was particular attention to confrontations and threats that took place before the shooting. Miller had said that there was someone he “would fill with lead if he did not pay his bill,” and he “would cut his —- — — —- heart out.” Miller also confessed the paint store wasn’t doing so well, which probably explained why he had to fire the painter and needed the $20 so badly.

A couple of days earlier, the two men bumped into each other at the corner of Fourth and Mendocino. Several witnesses overheard or saw the showdown. Miller, who everyone agreed cussed like a preacher’s son, called Dr. Bogle a “thieving —- — — ——” the PD reported in its trial coverage, the paper thoughtfully using lines of varying width so you could try to puzzle out the censored words. Another witness said Dr. Bogle replied: “If you say I am a —- — — —- you are a —- —- —- — — —-.” (Contest: Submit your best guesses!) Miller flashed a jack knife. Bogle whipped out a pen knife. They parted ways after a couple of minutes.

As they lived next to each other, Bogle later testified he hung back as Miller walked towards their neighborhood. He was watching as Miller turned the corner, apparently to enter his house via the side gate. A few minutes later, he said Miller was back out on Mendocino and heading downtown. Bogle told the court he assumed Miller had gone home to arm himself.

The next morning (now a day before the shooting) Miller was overheard to say, “if he does not pay it I will kill the G—d d-—n —- — — —.” Later in the day that person told Bogle what he had heard and the doctor replied, “All right, I’ll keep an eye open.”

Miller already had intimidated Bogle earlier that day, when he saw the doctor go into his old business, the Santa Rosa Stables, to rent a horse and buggy. Miller followed him in and began stalking back and forth at the front of the stable, looking angry and nervous. “I wish you would hurry,” Bogle urged the hostler. One of the owners came out from the back because he “thought there might be trouble.” When Bogle drove off in the buggy Miller also left.

The owners of the stable were old friends of Miller, and later in the day both had separate conversations with him. Miller – who was drinking heavily that day – wandered back to the barn, where one of them told Miller he was glad there wasn’t a confrontation with Bogle. Miller admitted he had followed the doctor “for the purpose of having trouble,” but didn’t want to cause a problem for the owners. Besides, he planned to “see Bogle later” and “hurt him.”

The other owner saw Miller coming out of a saloon and followed him. In a joking manner he asked Miller, “Are you fixed?” and frisked him. To his surprise, he felt a knife in Miller’s coat pocket. The friend told Miller he was a fool and should go home.

That night there was a final incident when Bogle passed Miller’s place. Bogle’s two year-old daughter ran down the sidewalk to greet him; taking her hand, they were walking up their steps when Miller came out of his house, screaming “I’ll fix you yet, you G—d d—-n —- — — —-. I’ll fix you yet.”

“Illustrated Portfolio of Santa Rosa and Vicinity,” 1909
“Illustrated Portfolio of Santa Rosa and Vicinity,” 1909

The Press Democrat’s coverage of Bogle’s trial was excellent – as was typical of the newspaper’s court reporting in that era – but the San Francisco papers lost interest and only ran terse summaries. After the initial report about the knife-wielding lunatic charging at the good doctor, it seemed obvious Bogle would be found innocent on account of self defense.

And yes, the jury found him not guilty – but only after deliberating over three hours and taking nine votes. One or more jurors held out for a manslaughter conviction until it was past midnight. But if the case really was so cut-and-dried, why was there any doubt?

Because there was no evidence that Miller had actually done anything to harm Bogle, including attempted assault. Yes, he was foul-mouthed, had frequently made colorful threats and physically tried to intimidate the doctor, but there were no acts of violence.

Ah (you pipe up), what about the attack that led to him being shot? In the initial PD story, the paper stated: “…Brandishing a knife which he either already had in his hand or else hurriedly took from his pocket, Miller made a rapid step forward…”

During the trial it was shown that none of that was true. Miller was not holding a knife and was 10+ feet away, next to his back stairs. Either the reporter made this up or (more likely) the story was the fabricated consensus of the “knots of men gathered on the streets discussing the matter” who actually hadn’t witnessed anything.

When Miller was carried inside after the shooting his wife and others removed his clothes to examine his wounds. In his pocket was found some money, keys, and a small pocketknife. At the coroner’s inquest witnesses testified they saw no knife in Miller’s hand, although one believed “he saw the handle end of a knife.” The first neighbor on the scene testified he saw no weapon but Miller had a toothpick in his mouth, which the neighbor removed. It was solemnly entered as “People’s Exhibit, No. 1.”

Bogle himself never claimed there was a knife, but thought Miller had a gun behind his back. In his trial testimony, he said Miller came down his back stairs with his right hand in his pocket. Continuing his testimony, as reported in the PD:


As he reached the bottom of the steps he took his hand from his pocket and put both hands behind him. Continuing to advance he cried, “I’m going to fix you, you G—d d—-n — — — —, I’m going to fix you, and don’t you think I won’t!”

Bogle testified he told Miller to stay back.


“I don’t want to have any trouble with you,” he continued. Miller continued to advance, both hands still held behind his back. At that moment, witness testified, he heard two sharp, distinct clicks, resembling the cocking of a revolver. Hurriedly drawing his own pistol he fired four shots at Miller in rapid succession. At the fourth shot Miller sunk to the ground. As he fell, witness heard some metallic substance strike the stone pavement upon which he had been standing.

Looking up the street Bogle saw that the shots had drawn attention and he walked away, “knowing that assistance for Miller was therefore close at hand.”

There are several problems with this story, starting with Bogle’s view of whatever Miller was doing with his right hand, since Miller’s left side would have been facing the street. The nut of his defense was that he believed Miller palmed a gun in his completely unseen right hand, then hid that hand behind his back while deftly pivoting toward Bogle to completely conceal what he was holding. There’s some choreography to doing that, particularly while crazily screaming “God damn dash dash dash dash.”

Now we come to the shooting, and note Bogle said he fired four times, not three – although that doesn’t really matter. If Miller was advancing on him with both hands behind his back, how on earth could a bullet graze his forearm?

Mentioned only briefly at the trial was the course of the fatal bullet. The autopsy found it “ranged upward and forward” from the entry point of his left hip. In other words, Miller was either above Bogle (as he would have been if he were near the top of his steps), or below Bogle, having already fallen and lying on his side. Bogle was asked to explain the evidence and said he could not, but he had a “theory” which was not shared with the court.

Nor could Miller have begun advancing towards him, as he was found crumpled at the base of his steps.

And finally, Miller was lying on his side, with one of the stray bullets lodged in the stairs while a mark on the concrete sidewalk showed it was struck by another bullet. All of this suggests Bogle was firing downward – that Miller was already on the ground and slightly turned the other way when the fatal shot was fired into his hip. It was Bogle’s great good luck that no one happened to be close enough to witness that he shot an unarmed man in cold blood.

The Samuel S. Bogle story has both an epilogue and a personal postscript.

Dr. Bogle became quite a big cheese in Santa Rosa – this is the 20th article here that has mentioned him in some manner. He was county physician for ten years and head of the county hospital for 25 overall. “Sammy” was also a president of the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce and was long on their board of directors.

The obl. Believe-it-or-Not! angle for this story is that he was also a well trained surgeon, and was probably the only physician in Santa Rosa who might have been able to save James M. Miller’s life.

It’s also worth considering that instead of self-defense, a more honest plea might have been temporary insanity. Bogle – who did not usually carry a gun and had brought his revolver home from his office the night before – was surely stressed out by the escalating threats and convinced Miller really would attack him. When Miller charged out the back door screaming murderously, Bogle might have felt empowered by the weapon in his pocket and blasted away in a panic.

As it turns out, the antihero of this journal, James Wyatt Oates, was a pioneer in the temporary insanity legal defense, having published an analysis, “Homicide and the Defense of Insanity.” He argued that courts should accept that the accused might irrationally (but honestly) believe circumstances forced him to kill – which fits the Bogle/Miller case like a glove. Oates’ paper was a significant intellectual work and can be found cited in law journals up to the 1940s. Oates, who lived on Tenth street at the time also saw the post-shooting commotion as he was walking home on Mendocino and joined in the effort to aid Miller. Oates was hired as co-counsel defending Bogle and was vigorous in cross-examinations. The two men became quite close and Dr. Bogle was one of the executors of Oates’ estate.

This tale of Miller’s 1900 killing is obscure stuff. Except for a few days of interest right after the shooting, little was mentioned in any newspaper until Bogle’s trial, and that was only well covered in the Santa Rosa papers for a couple of days. The story has never been written up by any other historian (as far as I can tell) even though I think Gentle Reader will agree that it’s a pretty interesting episode in Santa Rosa’s history.

I would not have learned about it if not for the late Neil Blazey, a fellow history spelunker who stumbled across an item on the killing while researching something else on microfilm and recognized it was a helluva unusual story.

Over the years Neil tipped me off to other gems, particularly the sad tale of the bigamist’s second widow. He had a strong science background and we debated far-flung topics such as whether it might be possible for “Historical Human Remains Detection Dogs” to find bodies buried for 170 years, how many gold coins could be realistically transported in a 22.5 horsepower runabout, and whether the post-earthquake fire in 1906 was hot enough to break down lime-based mortar into fragile quicklime. He will always be greatly missed.

Dr. Samuel Saffell Bogle (1867-1941) Image courtesy Sonoma County L:ibrary
Dr. Samuel Saffell Bogle (1867-1941) Image courtesy Sonoma County L:ibrary

 

sources

STARTLING AFFAIR
J. M. Miller Shot By Dr. S. S. Bogle
WOUNDS NOT FATAL
The Result of a Disagreement Over Money Matters
Three Shots Fired at Close Range Two of Which Took Effect – Trouble Had Been Brewing for Several Days

Last night shortly before 7 o’clock residents in the neighborhood of Mendocino and Johnson streets were startled by the loud report of three pistol shots which suddenly rang out upon the cool evening air.

A crowd hurriedly congregated and it was ascertained that as the result of trouble growing out of a discussion concerning money matters Dr. S. S. Bogle, the well known local physician, had shot and badly wounded J. M. Miller, the paint and oil dealer, whose place of business is situated on Hinton avenue a few doors south of the express office.

The shooting occurred near the corner of Johnson and Mendocino streets, not far from the Presbyterian church, Miller being at the time in his back yard and tho physician standing on the sidewalk outside. The two gentlemen occupy residences adjoining but while Dr. Bogle’s residence fronts on Johnson street the Miller house faces Mendocino street and sides on Johnson.

Dr. Bogle had just finished his supper and was on his way down town. As he passed out of his front gate and started down Johnson street towards Mendocino Mr. Miller was standing on the narrow walk leading from the side gate to the house. Dr. Bogle made some remark, to which Miller replied in, a highly acrimonious manner, and referring to a topic which had been before under discussion he embellished his remarks with an insulting epithet. A few words back and forth followed the result which was according to Mr. Miller’s statement made later in the evening, a remark from Dr. Bogle to the effect that the matter might just as well be settled then as any time.

Brandishing a knife which he either already had in his hand or else hurriedly took from his pocket, Miller made a rapid step forward, whereupon the doctor quickly whipped a revolver from his pocket and fired three shots, two of which took effect, the third finding lodgment in the back steps of the Miller residence.

Attorney John T. Campbell, who lives three doors east of the scene of the affair, Colonel James W. Oates, who was passing down Mendocino street at the time, and J. L. Durivage were among the first on the scene. Carrying the injured man into the house. Dr. Jesse, whose office was only two blocks away, was hurriedly summoned, as was also Dr. Neal, and the wounds were given careful attention.

Dr. Bogle in the meantime had proceeded quietly to the sheriff’s office where he gave himself up. His attorney, Senator James C. Sims, being summoned a consultation followed, the result of which was that the doctor was later in the evening admitted to bail by Judge Brown in the sum of ten thousand dollars with Frank Koenig, Dr. J. W. Jesse, F. H. Newman and A. B. Lemmon as sureties.

While Dr. Bogle, acting upon the advice of his attorney, refused to be interviewed, and while a statement from Mr. Miller was necessarily difficult to obtain, it was ascertained that the cause of the trouble was about as follows: Up until a few months ago, when the place was purchased by Vanderhoof & Koenig, Mr. Miller conducted the Santa Rosa Stables. At tho time he sold out, Dr. Bogle owed him a bill amounting to about twenty dollars. The bill was not presented for some time, and in the meantime Miller had engaged in the paint and oil business. A man working for Miller at that time owed the doctor for professional services, and it was proposed and agreed that Miller should collect the amount from his man and thus square both accounts. A short time afterwards and before the matter had been adjusted, the painter lost his position. Miller thereupon came back on the doctor for the original bill. From this situation the discussion arose.

Miller is said to have been quite vindictive in his actions regarding the matter. The two men met a day or so ago on Fourth street and it is claimed that both drew their knives, but trouble was averted for the time being at least. The next time they met was last night, and while the misunderstanding as outlined is said to have been the starting point of the trouble, the real cause for the sensational outcome was of course the feeling engendered by the discussion.

George Felix, an employee of the California Northwestern railway, was an eye witness to the shooting. He was riding down Mendocino street on his wheel and was just in front of the Miller residence when the first shot was fired. Turning down Johnson street from whence the sound of the shooting proceeded, he says, he saw two more shots fired in rapid succession. At the time the second and third shots were fired the two men were about twelve or fifteen feet apart. One of the bullets was picked up later close to the gate where the two men first came together.

One ball struck Miller in the forearm, inflicting a flesh wound. The other ball entered midway between a line drawn from the articulatum of the sacrum and coccyx bones and the great trochanter of the femur, ranged upward and forward and passed out in the opposite groin.

At midnight it was learned at the Miller residence that the sufferer was resting easily at that time. Dr. Jesse had just called and Dr. Neal had left shortly before. Dr. Jesse said that he did not consider that Mr. Miller was in a dangerous condition. He had no fever then and gave evidence that his constitution was good.

The affair naturally created a great sensation. Ail evening knots of men gathered on the streets discussing the matter. The time of Dr. Bogle’s examination has not yet been set but he will probably be arraigned today, Assistant District Attorney Berry and Court Reporter H. A. Scott took Miller’s examination at a late hour last night as he lay in his bed.

Dr. Bogle came to Santa Rosa about a year and a half ago from Monterey where he enjoyed a large and remunerative practice. Since taking up his residence in this city he has made many friends. A number were early on hand last night with offers of assistance. Mr. Miler has resided here a number of years. For some time he was engaged in the carpet business, later he became the proprietor of the Santa Rosa stables, and several months ago he purchased the paint and oil store formerly conducted by J. E. Gannon on Hinton avenue.

– Press Democrat, April 28 1900

 

MILLER DIES AS THE RESULT OF HIS WOUND
Dr. Bogle, the Santa Rosa Physician, Held for Murder Without Bail.

SANTA ROSA. April 28.— James M. Miller, the Hinton avenue paint and wallpaper dealer who as the result of a misunderstanding over money matters was shot by Dr. S. S. Bogle in the back yard of his residence on Mendocino street Wednesday evening died this morning shortly after 11 o’clock of his wounds…

– San Francisco Call, April 29 1900

 

Coroner’s Jury Charges Dr. Bogle With Murder.
The Latter Was Rearrested and is Now Awaiting Trial on a Murder Charge – The Inquest.

The remains of J. M. Miller who was shot at Santa Rosa by Dr. S. S. Bogle, will be taken to San Francisco Tuesday morning to be cremated. Miller’s last request was that his body might be cremated. At 4 o’clock Monday afternoon funeral services were held at the Miller home, Rev. Wm. Martin and Rev. S. P. Whiting officiating.

The deceased was a Grand Army man and as soon aa his death was known Commander W. A. Dougherty of Ellsworth post ordered a guard of honor to stand watch at the Miller home. The body will be escorted to the train Tuesday morning by a Grand Army escort…

…Dr. Bogle, who shot Miller, is in jail charged with murder. As soon as Miller died the doctor, who was out on bonds of $10,000, was rearrested. He was charged by the coroner’s jury with having caused Miller’s death…

…The evidence at the coroner’s inquest indicated that Miller was shot while standing about ten feet from Bogle.

One witness who helped to carry the wounded man into his house testified that Miller said, “I’m done for, I’m done for. Why should a man treat me like that after what I’ve done for him. If I get up out of this I’ll fix him.”

Dr. Neal testified that from the manner of the wound Miller must have been in a stooping position when he was shot.

Several witnesses testified that they saw no knife in Miller’s hand but J. L. Durivage said that he saw the handle end of a knife in Miller’s right hand. When help came Miller was lying at the foot of the back stairs.

– Petaluma Argus-Courier, April 30, 1900

 

THE BOGLE TRIAL
Many Witnesses Were Examined on Thursday
Incidents of the Trial Before Judge Carroll Cook — Mrs. Miller One of the Witnesses

The case of the people of the State of California against Dr. S. S. Bogle came to trial in department two of the Superior Court Wednesday morning before Judge Carroll Cook of San Francisco, sitting for Judge Burnett.

[…jury selection…Oates calls for dismissal of charges…a map of the scene is presented by surveyor Smyth…]

…When he was excused D. B. Hart was the next witness called. Witness Hart stated that on the night of the shooting he came at the beckoning of Mrs. Miller to her residence, where he saw Mr. Miller lying on the ground near the back steps. He was moaning at the time. About the same time that he arrived Dr. Neal and Will R. Carithers, also came. The witness stated that he saw no deadly weapon on Miller, in fact he made no examination anyway. The witness produced a toothpick In court, which he testified he took from Miller’s mouth after the shooting.

The Hon. John Tyler Campbell who resides near the Miller residence, testified that he was dining on the night in question when he heard either three or four shots. He came to the front of the house and then J. L. Durivage called to him that some one had been hurt. He saw Mr. Miller being carried to the house. The witness was also asked questions concerning the location of place of the shooting and the view thereof from the place where he was standing.

Eugene Fisher, who now resides at San Rafael and who was formerly employed as cook at the county jail, testified that after the shooting Dr. Bogle came to the jail to give himself up to the officers. He left a pistol (produced by the district attorney) with the witness. The pistol was then admitted in evidence and was marked “People’s Exhibit, No. 2,” the toothpick produced by the witness Hart having been marked “People’s Exhibit, No. 1.” Court then adjourned for the noon recess.

The first witness called at the afternoon session was Dr. J. W. Jesse. Being summoned a few moments after the shooting, he found Mr. Miller lying upon the couch to which he had been carried. Investigation developed the fact that he was suffering from the effect of two gunshot wounds. One was in the right arm, the bullet having entered at a point about half way between the wrist and the elbow, coming out just behind the elbow joint. The other bullet had entered about the middle of the left hip, penetrated the intestines, and came out on the other side of the stomach just above the groin. Death resulted, in the opinion of the witness, from peritonitis. caused by the wound last mentioned. After further testimony of a professional nature, the witness was excused.

Dr. William Finlaw was the next witness. Together with Dr. Jesse be had performed the autopsy held a short time after Mr. Miller’s death. He examined the wound made by the bullet entering the hip, but not the other one. In his opinion death resulted from peritonitis, caused by inflammation resulting from the wound described.

W. R. Carithers was then called. While on his way home on the evening of the shooting he had been attracted by people running towards the Miller house. Witness was then just [a]cross from the Miller residence, on Mendocino street. Hurrying across the street he found Mrs. Miller [s]tanding at her front gate. She told him to go to the rear of the house. There he found Mr. Miller lying with his head on the lower back step. He assisted in carrying the injured man into the house and in removing his clothing. He did not know what the pockets of his clothing contained. He had heard either three or four shots fired, hut was not certain which.

Mrs. J. H. Barrickio was called and sworn. She resides next door to the Bogle residence on Johnson street. On the evening of April 25 she heard four shots fired. Rushing to the window and looking in the direction from which the sound came she saw Dr. Bogle standing on the sidewalk at a point about opposite the fence dividing the Miller and Bogle lots. She illustrated the time elapsing between the different shots and after [s]ome further testimony was excused.

Clinton Demmer, being called, took the stand. On the evening of the shooting he was standing in front of his father’s store on Mendocino street, about a block from the Miller residence. Hearing four pistol shots he started in their direction. In front of the Riley residence he passed Dr. Bogle on his way toward the courthouse, also another man going in the opposite direction. Arriving at Mr. Millers side gate he found several persons assembled there. Mr. Hart, who lives opposite, was just entering the house by the rear door. Witness described but not very minutely, several bullet marks he noticed in the neighborhood of the steps. When he passed Dr. Bogle some one was whistling, but witness was not sure whether it was Dr. Bogle or the other gentleman referred to.

Thomas Bonner was sworn and gave the result of certain investigations made yesterday as to the positions on Mendocino street from which two men standing in the rear of the Miller residence on Johnson street could be seen.

Mrs. J. M. Miller, wife of the deceased, next took the stand. After identifying a map showing the relative location of the Miller and the Bogle residences she testified that on the evening of April 25 she and her husband had supper about 6 o’clock. Mr. Miller started down town, going out the back door and down the back steps. A few moments later witness heard four shots fired. Rushing out the back door she found her husband lying on his side on the lower steps. She did not see Dr. Bogle. Running around the house the other way she made her way to the front gate. She saw Dr. Neal passing and motioned to him to come in. Mr. Miller was carried into the house and his clothes were removed. From the pockets of his clothing she took a note book. $15 in gold, three dollars and some cents in silver, a knife and some keys. The knife, a small pocket affair, was identified and placed in evidence. In response to a question from the district attorney, Mrs. Miller testified that at the time of the shooting her husband did not have a pistol upon his person.

Newton V. V. Smyth, the surveyor, was next called. He had at the request of the defense examined the location of the Miller and Bogle residences and told the jury of the height of the buildings, steps, etc.

Clinton Demmer, being recalled, told of having found a bullet mark on the cement walk leading from Miller’s side gate to the back steps. He was not sure as to the exact location of the mark.

At the conclusion of young Demmer’s testimony court adjourned until Friday morning at 10 o’clock.

 

MUCH EVIDENCE IN
Very Strong Testimony At Dr. Bogle’s Trial
The Court and Jury Taken to View the Scene of the Shooting on Johnson Street

At the opening of the proceedings of the case yesterday Mrs. J. M. Miller, the widow, was recalled by the prosecution to the witness stand. The main purpose of her additional testimony was to identify her deceased husband’s clothes.

C. D. McDuffy was the next witness called. On the night of the shooting he was sitting in his buggy on Johnson street near the Durivage home. He heard the shots fired and so far as he knew there were three. If there was a fourth shot fired he did not hear it. He did not see the shooting.

The witness saw a man standing on or near the sidewalk outside the Miller residence near the gate. He afterwards learned that the man he saw was Dr. Bogle. The Doctor was standing with his face turned partly towards the Miller residence. The witness staled that he took no interest in the shots until he learned that some one had been hurt and did not get out of his buggy for several minutes.

George Felix, who is employed on the California Northwestern, was the next witness called. He was probably the only eye-witness to the shooting. He testified that on the night in question he was riding his bicycle on Mendocino street and that he got off near the corner on Johnson street. He looked up Johnson street and saw Dr. Bogle standing on the sidewalk outside of the Miller residence and also saw Mr. Miller standing at the corner of his residence near the back stairs. He saw Dr. Bogle put his hand in his pocket for his pistol which he raised and fired at Mr. Miller. Miller had his hands down at the time, as far as he could see, and after the third shot he fell, the witness testified. After the occurrence he (the witness) jumped on his wheel and went for Dr. Jesse.

During the cross-examination of the witness Felix by Attorney Ware, he was asked a number of questions to make certain the statement he made on direct examination that he was off his wheel when the first shot was fired and was looking up Johnson street at the two men. The witness’ testimony at the preliminary examination was read to him. At the preliminary hearing he testified that it was hard for a person to measure distances while on a bicycle. The witness yesterday claimed while he was on the stand that he was pretty certain that he was off his bicycle when the first shot was fired.

Upon further cross-examination by Mr. Ware the witness testified that he did not see either of Mr. Miller’s hands when the first shot was fired. He further testified that when Mr. Miller staggered back Dr. Bogle ceased firing and put the revolver in his back pocket. The witness was asked many more questions as to distances and as to his testimony given at the hearing before the magistrate. His answers differed from his previous testimony in some points. When the witness was excused, District Attorney Webber announced that the case for the people was rested.

Attorney Ware then made the opening statement for the defense. He told the jury that they proposed to lift the curtain over Dr. Bogle’s life and would show his record and that they expected to show by the best men in Monterey and Sonoma counties and other places that his character for peace and quietude had been irreproachable. Counsel proceeded to point out that the defense would show that trouble over a bill was what led up to the unfortunate affair and he detailed some of the circumstances in connection therewith.

The defense expected to show. Mr. Ware said, that Miller had openly stated that if Dr. Bogle did not pay the bill that he would kill him. Further they would show that this threat had been communicated to Dr. Bogle by a gentleman who would be called as a witness. Counsel stated that the defense would show that similar threats had been made by Miller at different times and that Dr. Bogle had been warned of them. They would show that Miller had followed Dr. Bogle around and that the Doctor had tried to avoid him. They would show that a few days before the unfortunate occurrence the two men met on the public street and that after Mr. Miller had used some harsh words in talking with Dr. Bogle that he drew a knife upon him.

After outlining the course to be pursued by the defense. Attorney Ware turned to the events of the night of the shooting. He said the defense expected to show that Miller directed an epithet at Bogle and threatened to kill him and that he (Miller) reached for his pistol pocket and advanced towards Bogle and that Dr. Bogle, mindful of the threats made upon his life, shot Mr. Miller.

R. W. Moore was the first witness called for the defense. He is the man with whom the bill over which the trouble occurred originated. Dr. Bogle attended Mr. Moore’s wife during her illness. Moore at the time was employed by Mr. Miller and between the three an agreement was reached as to the payment of the bill.

Judge Cook, however, would not allow the details concerning the bi!l to go in evidence. He, however, permitted Mr. Moore to testify that there had been an agreement regarding the bill between himself and Mr. Miller and Dr. Bogle. The witness was then excused.

At this juncture Colonel Oates, of counsel for the defense arose and asked the court to permit the jury to go with an officer to view the premises where the shooting occurred.

His Honor said that he thought the case was one where such a course would be perfectly proper. An adjournment was taken and the judge, defendant, jury and bailiffs, court reporter, clerk, counsel on both aides, composing tbs entire court, proceeded down Mendocino street to Johnson street. At the suggestion of counsel Judge Cook acted as guide and pointed out the various places referred to in the case, including the Miller, Bogle, Barrickio, Campbell and Durivage residences, the fences, foliage, etc. The jury also viewed the places from the different points suggested in the evidence they had heard. After this the court and Jury returned to the court room and the noon adjournment was taken.

Ney L. Donovan was the first witness called at the afternoon session. Being duly sworn he stated that the evening of April 23, two days prior to the shooting, he had been attracted by loud talking at the corner of Fourth and Mendocino streets. Dr. Bogle and Mr. Miller were doing the talking. Mr. Miller had a knife in his hand, a pocket knife, and he held it with the blade partially up his sleeve. The first words the witness heard were spoken by Mr. Miller. He called Dr. Bogle a “thieving — — — —-.” Miller was greatly excited. His manner was aggressive. Dr. Bogle was also excited. Dr. Bogle stepped back, however, and told Miller to put up his knife. Witness remained in the neighborhood until the two men parted. Dr. Bogle crossed the street, and Mr. Miller made his way up Mendocino street. The meeting described occurred about opposite Claypool’s tailor shop on Mendocino street. Miller afterwards returned.

Upon cross-examination the witness stated he was positive he had seen the knife in Mr. Miller’s hand. If he was whittling anything at the time witness did not notice it. Witness admitted that Dr. Bogle had a knife in his hand later, but he did not consider Dr. Bogle’s actions aggressive. Mr. Miller on the contrary was quite so. He made one move toward Dr. Bogle at least and the latter stepped back. Witness did not see Mr. Miller take the knife out of his pocket. He had it in his hand when witness arrived upon the scene. Mr. Miller did not raise the hand in which he held the knife, but the movement referred to was one of the whole body. Witness stoutly maintained that in his opinion Mr. Miller was the aggressor.

S. B. Claypool was then called. On Monday evening, April 23, between the hours of 6 and 7, while preparing to close his place of business, he saw Miller and Bogle engaged in a discussion on Mendocino street. Miller made the remark “You are a — thief.” To this Dr. Bogle replied that he was not a thief. One word led to another, several hard names were called, and Dr. Bogle said. “Put up your knife.” This was the first time witness had noticed the knife in Miller’s hand. Both men were excited. but Miller the more so. In witness’ opinion Miller was the aggressor. Dr. Bogle told Mr. Miller to put up the knife at least once before he took his own knife, a small pen knife, from out his vest pocket.

Upon cross-examination witness admitted that both men had engaged in the exchange of verbal compliments. He did not see Miller draw his knife — it was already in his hand when he noticed it.

Upon re-direct examination witness stated that Miller’s knife was a jack knife, the blade open being about three or three and a half inches long. Miller held the knife in his hand with the blade pointing backward and upward.

Walter V. Middleton was called. He conducts a saloon at the corner of Fourth and Mendocino streets. A couple of days before the shooting he saw Miller and Bogle together near his place of business. Mr. Miller angry and was abusing Dr. Bogle. Mr. Miller called the Doctor a thief and several other hard names. To one Dr. Bogle replied: “If you say I am a — — — — you are a — — — — — —.” Miller had a knife in his hand. Witness could not remember in which hand Miller held the knife. Both men were angry. Witness also saw a small pen knife in Bogle’s hand. Miller’s knife was a good-sized pocket knife.

Upon cross-examination witness admitted that he had not seen Miller make any motion to strike Bogle.

Gene Ross was called and sworn. He was in this city on the evening of April 23, and saw the meeting described by the previous witnesses. Witness heard Dr. Bogle say that Miller had a knife in his hand. At the time Bogle’s hands were empty. Bogle took his knife from his pocket later on. Miller was angry and made a move forward, at which Bogle stepped back. Miller held his knife with the blade pointed backward The two men confronted each other probably two minutes or so.

Upon cross-examination witness slated that he did not think Dr. Bogle was much excited. He did not see Miller make any attempt to strike Bogle. He made a movement forward however, at which Bogle jumped back and took his own knife from his pocket.

Dr. C. W. Reed, the dentist, was called. His offices are in the Masonic block, a few doors from Mr. Miller’s then place of business on Hinton avenue. On a certain occasion he went into Miller’s store to see about paying a bill. Miller during the visit said that Dr. Bogle owed him a bill and “if he does not pay it I will kill the G—d d-—n — — — —.” Later in Bernstein’s cigarstore. he told Dr. Bogle of the circumstance and warned him to “look out” for Miller. Thornton Preston, witness thought, was present and had heard him tell Dr. Bogle this.

Upon cross-examination witness stated that when he told Dr. Bogle of Miller’s actions the physician replied, “All right, I’ll keep an eye open.” The conversation with Miller occurred on the morning of April 24. as near as he witness could remember.

Thornton Preston, a clerk in Bernstein’s cigar store, next took the stand. He corroborated the testimony of the previous witness to the effect that he (Reed) had warned Dr. Bogle to “look out for” Miller, and had related to him the circumstance of his visit to Miller’s store and the conversation there had. To this Bogle replied that he would keep his eyes open.

Upon cross-examination witness was not positive of the date of this occurrence but was of the opinion that it look place a day or two before the meeting on Mendocino street described by the previous witnesses.

M. V. Vanderhoof took the stand. He described a meeting that occurred between Dr. Bogle and Mr. Miller in the Vanderhoof and Koenig stables the day before the shooting. Dr. Bogle came in to get a horse and buggy. Miller also came in. While the rig was being hitched up Dr. Bogle said to the hostler. “I wish you would hurry.” Miller was walking up and down in the front part of the stable and appeared nervous. Witness was first in the rear of the stable, but came up front because he “thought there might be trouble.” Dr. Bogle got in the buggy and drove out. Miller also went out.

Later in the day Mr. Miller came into the barn again. Witness then congratulated Mr. Miller upon the fact that he had not had any trouble with Bogle that morning. Miller replied that he also was glad, because he had come into the barn “for the purpose of having trouble,” but out of regard for witness and his partner (Frank Koenig) he had refrained. He said he Would “see Bogle later.” however, and would “hurt him.”

Upon cross-examination witness admitted that there was nothing unusual in a physician entering a livery stable and calling for a horse and buggy in a hurry. He did not see Miller make any threatening moves. Witness reiterated his statement, however, that he had come from the back of the stable because he anticipated trouble, knowing that the men had had trouble the night before.

Frank Koenig was called and corroborated the testimony of the previous witness regarding the occurrence in the livery stable. Later in the day. witness stated, he saw Miller coming out of Orr & Stump’s saloon. He crossed the street and entered Fine’s butcher shop. Witness, knowing Miller very intimately, followed into the butcher shop and began to “josh” him. “Are you fixed?” he asked. Placing his hands on Miller’s sides, he felt a knife in Miller’s outside coat pocket. Witness then drew back, and told Miller he was a fool and had better go home. Miller laughed, shrugged his shoulders and said nothing.

Koenig’s cross-examination was very brief. He was asked whether or not he had ever seen Mr. Miller threaten Dr. Bogle and replied In the negative.

Thomas Bonner being called to the stand, testified to having seen Mr. Miller walking up and down in front of Vanderhoof & Koenig’s livery stable on the day mentioned. Witness had intended talking life insurance to Mr. Miller, but when he saw him decided not to do so and did not even speak to him. The reason witness changed his mind was because whoa he got close to him he saw that Miller appeared angry. Witness had known Miller very well for several years but never knew or heard until after the homicide that he had a crippled hand. After a brief cross-examination witness was excused and court adjourned to 1 o’clock this morning. It is hardly likely the case will be concluded before Monday night.

– Press Democrat, September 22 1900

 

BOGLE NOT GUILTY
Verdict Rendered at Midnight
THE TRIAL ENDED
The Jury Deliberated Three Hours and a Quarter
A Big Crowd Listens to the Brilliant Arguments Node by Counsel on Monday

Saturday was an interesting day in the trial of the state against Dr. S. S. Bogle, which was resumed at 10 o’clock in the morning before Judge Carroll Cook. Dr. C. W. Reed, the dentist, was the first witness called. He was asked a question by District Attorney Webber as to whether he had made a statement regarding the trouble between Bogle and Miller. The Doctor replied that he had said that Miller had said that he would kill Bogle.

City Surveyor L. E. Ricksecker was the next witness called for the defense. He was asked by Colonel Oates if Dr. Bogle had ever been to see him regarding his trouble with Miller. Mr. Ricksecker replied that the Doctor came to him and begged him to see Miller and get him to arbitrate the matter. He (the witness) unfortunately was not able to see Miller.

A. J. Wheeler was called and related a conversation he had with Mr. Miller a short time before the shooting. At that time Miller told him that business was not satisfactory but that it would be better if some of those persons who owed bills and did not pay them “were plunked full of lead.” He further stated that there was one man in particular whom he “would fill with lead if he did not pay his bill.”

George F. King, the Fourth street grocer. testified that he had a conversation with Mr. Miller in his store in which Miller related his trouble with Bogle. Miller then threatened that he would kill Dr. Bogle.

Oscar McNally, employed at Frank Koenig’s livery stable, was called. He testified that on one occasion Mr. Miller was following another man across the street whom he thought was Dr. Bogle. The witness testified that he heard Mr. Miller make a threat against Dr. Bogle, saying that he “would cut his — — — — heart out.”

Dr. J. W. Jesse was recalled by the defense. He testified that when George Felix rode up to him and informed him of the shooting he (Felix) stated that Miller had killed Dr. Bogle, and that when he (Dr. Jesse) started for the house he expected that he was going to see Dr. Bogle. The Doctor further testified that Dr. Bogle had consulted him about his trouble with Mr. Miller and he (the witness) believed that he had on one occasion advised Dr. Bogle to put Mr. Miller under bonds. Dr. Jesse further testified that Dr. Bogle’s “reputation for peace and quietness” prior to April 25, in the community was good.

M. J. Striening of the Santa Rosa Bank was called and also testified that Dr. Bogle’s reputation for peace and quietness was good.

W. F. Wines, assistant cashier of the Exchange Bank, testified that Dr. Bogle’s reputation was good.

F. H. Newman, the druggist, whose place of business is on the corner of Fourth and Mendocino streets, testified that he had known Dr. Bogle, both in Monterey and Santa Rosa for many years. His reputation for peacefulness and quietness was very good in both places.

Other character witnesses were W. H. Pool, Allen B. Lemmon, Supervisor T. J. Field of Monterey county, all of whom testified that the defendant had enjoyed a good reputation. The district attorney asked each character witness whether or not he was a member of the same fraternal order to which Dr. Bogle belonged.

Witness Field in reply to the district attorney, stated he had never heard of Dr. Bogle being connected with an election scandal in Monterey but that he had been one of many citizens who had assisted in probing an election scandal.

Dr. O. S. Trimmer, president of the board of trustees of Pacific Grove, testified that he had known Dr. Bogle and that he had borne a good character. He testified that he had never heard of any one having taken a shot at Dr. Bogle.

R. F. Johnson, chairman of the board of trustees of Monterey, testified that Dr. Bogle’s reputation for peace and quiet was good. In reply to a question by Mr. Webber, the witness testified that he had not heard of Dr. Bogle having been mixed up in an election contest, neither had he heard of any one having taken a shot at him. The person whom the district attorney intimated had taken a shot at Dr. Bogle was named Selvay.

City Engineer W. C. Little of Pacific Grove testified that he knew Dr. Bogle’s reputation was good. H. C. Snodgrass of Pacific Grove, a retired Presbyterian minister, gave similar testimony.

At this stage of the proceedings Judge Carroll Cook, stated that as six people from Monterey had given character testimony that he thought that more witnesses from that section were unnecessary, as the district attorney was not going io introduce rebuttal testimony on the question of Dr. Bogle’s character. The court, however, stated that counsel could call one or two more witnesses from Santa Rosa.

County Recorder Fred L. Wright was called. He testified that Dr. Bogle’s general reputation for peace and quietness was good. Similar testimony was given by Waiter S. Davis of Davis & Crane’s insurance and real estate firm.

J. L. Durivage was the next witness called. He resides on Johnson street adjoining the Presbyterian church. On the night of the shooting he heard the shots and went to see what had happened. After the first glance at the man lying on the ground, the witness said, he ran to call Judge Campbell. The witness then detailed the arrival of others on the scene. He also said that he saw what looked like a pocket pruning knife in one of Mr. Miller’s hands. He also described circumstances subsequent to the discovery of the body. When the witness was excused court adjourned for the noon recess.

Thomas Bonner was recalled at the opening of the afternoon session, and testified us to the positions on Johnson street from which the back steps of the Miller residence could be seen.

John A. Stump, of the firm of Orr & Stump, next took the stand. In response to the questioning of Attorney Oates, witness testified that on the afternoon of April 25. Mr. Miller had taken “an extraordinary large” drink of whiskey over his bar. Witness noted the fact because Mr. Miller’s drinks were usually moderate in size. The purpose of this testimony, as explained by Mr. Oates, was an attempt to show that Miller had been preparing for trouble.

The next witness called was Dr. S. S. Bogle, the defendant. As he took the stand and began his story of the shooting and his recital of the trouble which led up to it, a murmur of suppressed interest and excitement passed around the court room and every spectator leaned unconsciously forward. For the first time Dr. Bogle was to tell his story of the unfortunate affair, and how Mr. Miller met his death.

The witness began, in response to queries from Mr. Ware, by giving his age and occupation and outlining his career before coming to this city about two years ago. previous to which time he practiced his profession in Monterey. When asked if he had ever had any trouble in Monterey, as intimated by the prosecution at the morning session, witness replied indignantly in the negative, saying he had never before been in trouble of any kind.

In telling of his trouble with Miller, the witness began at the very beginning. He told of the disputed account, of the meeting on Mendocino street when both had drawn their knives, of the threats Miller had made to kill him, of his attempt to have the matter settled by arbitration, of Miller’s actions at various times, and finally of the shooting itself.

On the evening of the meeting on Mendocino street after the two parted Miller walked up Mendocino to Johnson street, turned down Johnson and disappeared from sight around the corner. Bogle crossed over to Speegle’s stand and watched him do so. Three or four minutes later Miller came back around the corner of Johnson street and started downtown. Witness’ opinion was that he had gone home and armed himself.

Having no desire to meet Miller[,] witness then made his way through Orr & Stump’s saloon, which is located in the Dougherty-Shea block, into the lot in the rear and by the back stairs entered the building and made his way to his office. This office is in the Dougherty-Shea block just mentioned. He remained in his office about half an hour and then taking his revolver from his desk, placed it in his pocket and went home. No further trouble resulted that night.

The next morning, when about ready to start down town, witness noticed from the window that Miller was out working in his yard. He was driving a stake, using an axe and standing on a step ladder. He kept glancing continuously toward the Bogle residence. Witness called his wife’s attention to the fact, and at her request did not leave the house that morning. When he did go down town witness did not pass the Miller house as was his usual custom.

Instead of doing so he walked down Johnson street the other way and passed down Riley alley, thence on to Fifth street and down to Mendocino that way. This was the day he asked Mr. Ricksecker to see Miller and as a friend of both parties suggest the matter of arbitrating their differences.

That night, which was the night preceding the shooting, witness started home about 6 o’clock. As he reached the corner of Johnson and Mendocino streets, where Miller’s residence is situated, his little daughter, two years old. came running down the street to meet him. Taking her by the hand they walked down Johnson street the length of the Miller property to the Bogle gate and started up the steps. As they entered the gate Miller came out into his yard, and as witness and his little daughter were making their way up the steps Miller shouted. “I’ll fix you yet, you G—d d—-n — — — —. I’ll fix you yet.”

Wednesday afternoon, the day of the shooting, witness about half past 2 o’clock drove over to Sebastopol. He returned about 5:30. Before starting home from his office some one asked him: “Have you seen Mr. Miller? He is looking for you.” He made his way home, however, without incident. Although he had tried to do so. witness could not recall the name of the man who had told him Miller had been looking for him.

That night after supper witness started down town according to his usual custom. As he reached a point on Johnson street about opposite the fence dividing his property from that of Mr. Miller, the latter opened his screen door and stepped out onto the back porch. He then started rapidly down the steps towards witness. Miller had his right hand in his hip pocket. As he reached the bottom of the steps he took his hand from his pocket and put both hands behind him. Continuing to advance he cried, “I’m going to fix you, you G—d d—-n — — — —, I’m going to fix you, and don’t you think I won’t!”

Witness told Miller to go back. “I don’t want to have any trouble with you,” he continued. Miller continued to advance, both hands still held behind his back. At that moment, witness testified, he heard two sharp, distinct clicks, resembling the cocking of a revolver. Hurriedly drawing his own pistol he fired four shots at Miller in rapid succession. At the fourth shot Miller sunk to the ground. As he fell, witness heard some metallic substance strike the stone pavement upon which he had been standing.

Witness then put his pistol up. Looking down Johnson street he saw a man standing near the Durivage home. Knowing that assistance for Miller was therefore close at hand, he walked down town and to the county jail to give himself up. Jailer Piezzi was not there, but witness left his revolver with Eugene Fisher, the then deputy jailer, and made his way to the Grand hotel and to the office of his attorney, J. C. Sims. Afterwards he surrendered himself at the sheriff’s office.

Upon cross-examination witness remained unbroken. When asked if he could tell why it was that one of the bullets had entered Miller’s hip, witness replied that he could not. He said he had his theory of the matter, however, but he was not permitted to give it.

Serafino Piezzi, jailor and deputy sheriff, was called to the stand to identify the pistol with which the shooting was done, but the identity of the weapon was admitted, as was the fact that the pistol at the time Dr. Bogle left it at the jail contained one unexploded cartridge. Piezzi was consequently excused, and the defense announced that it rested its case.

Miles Peerman was then called to the stand in rebuttal. He testified that on the morning of Dr. Bogle’s preliminary examination he heard Dr. C. W. Reed make the remark that he (Reed) had heard Miller make some remarks which if known “would help Bogle out.” Reed evidently referred to Mr. Miller’s threats to kill Bogle If he did not pay the bill previously spoken of. Upon cross examination witness’ testimony remained unshaken.

Mrs. J. M. Miller was also called to the stand in rebuttal and asked as to the condition of Mr. Miller’s right hand. She stated that never since his service in the army had he been able to close his hand or grasp any small object with it. Upon cross-examination however Mrs. Miller admitted that her husband was always able to eat with his knife and fork, but said that when driving he usually wrapped one of the lines around the right hand.

Mrs. W. R. Farion of Indianapolis, a sister of Mrs. J. M. Miller, was sworn. She had known J. M. Miller for about thirty-five years and knew that his right hand was injured. The injury was the result of a wound received while in the army.

Walter P. Price, deputy internal revenue collector, was called by the defense. He had often seen Mr. Miller hitch and unhitch horses but had never noticed anything the matter with his hand.

Deputy County Clerk Maitland G. Hall was also called. He had seen Mr. Miller use a pen many times. Miller wrote a good business hand. Witness never noticed that he wrote or held his pen any differently from any one else, or that there was anything the matter with his hands.

At the conclusion of Mr. Hall’s testimony the attorneys announced that the case was concluded. Judge Cook admonished the jury as to their duties and gave certain instructions, as to the way they should be treated over Sunday, after which court adjourned till Monday morning at 10 o’clock. The argument will then begin, and the case will go to the jury some time Monday or Monday night.

MONDAY’S PROCEEDINGS

Morning afternoon and evening the courtroom was crowded to its fullest capacity with men. women and children who never lost interest in the proceedings throughout the entire day. The arguments of counsel were heard with the closest attention, not a sentence being missed by the auditors. It is seldom that a more distinct wave of interest is noticed in a courtroom.

Monday is the usual calendar day in both departments of the Superior Court. On this occasion, however, so as not to lose any time Judge Cook continued the entire calendar for one week and at 10 o’clock took his seat on the bench and instructed counsel to proceed with the argument.

District Attorney O. O. Webber, who prosecuted the case vigorously, made the opening argument for the prosecution. He was followed by Colonel James W. Oates and Attorney A. B. Ware, the able counsel for defense. Then the district attorney closed the argument. All the addresses were very able and at times the learned gentlemen waxed eloquent. The arguments were classed as being some of the ablest heard in the court.

When the argument ended about half past 4 o’clock in the afternoon. Judge Cook announced that he would deliver his charge to the jury, at half past 7 o’clock in the evening. At that hour the courtroom was packed with people. The Judge’s instructions to the jury were lengthy, the delivery of the charge occupying about an hour and a half. While the court was speaking the silence was such that a person could almost have heard a pin drop.

The court gave the Jury a large number of instructions both for the prosecution and defense. One of the most important instructions given for the defendant was No. 22, which was as follows:

If the Jury find from the evidence that defendant knew deceased was angry with him and he had recently seen demonstrations of anger towards him on the part of the deceased, and that he had been informed by a person he regarded as reliable that deceased had threatened to do defendant great bodily harm or kill him, and had been advised to look out for deceased, and that this did create in defendant’s mind an apprehension that, he was likely to be attacked by deceased, he had a right to arm himself for his protection; and if soon thereafter defendant was passing by deceased’s house along the public sidewalk and deceased began a quarrel with defendant, deceased being in his own yard and defendant on the public sidewalk, and deceased advanced towards defendant and made any demonstration by words and acts calculated to produce in the mind of a reasonable man situated as defendant then was, seeing what he saw and knowing what he knew, including the fact of hostile feeling towards him on the part of deceased and of his former acts and threats against him communicated to defendant, if any, and did create the belief in the mind of defendant that deceased was then and there about to assault him with a deadly weapon, and that his, defendant’s safety required that he shoot deceased, he had a right to shoot until he saw that such impending danger was removed, and if the actions of deceased were rationally calculated to create the belief and did create the belief in defendant’s mind that deceased was probably armed with a pistol, defendant had a right to act upon such appearance and take his measure of defense accordingly. And if you believe from the evidence that the deceased had made threats to kill or do defendant great bodily harm, and that the deceased at the time of the shooting made a demonstration that meant as ordinarily observed among men that deceased was drawing a knife or pistol. or any other deadly weapon, defendant was not required to wait to see which it was; if deceased started to draw a weapon or put his hand behind him as if taking something out from his hip pocket, defendant had the right to act upon the assumption usually and reasonably flowing from such acts of deceased.

The jury took with them into the jury room five forms of verdict as follows:

We, the jury, find the defendant, S. S. Bogle, guilty of murder in the first degree.

We, the jury, find the defendant, S. S. Bogle, guilty of murder in the first degree and we fix the penalty at life imprisonment.

We, the jury, find the defendant, S. S. Bogle, guilty of murder in the second degree.

We, the jury, find the defendant. S. S. Bogle, guilty of manslaughter.

We, the jury, find the defendant, S. S. Bogle, not guilty.

Deputy Clerk Hall next swore in the officers to take charge of the jury. The officers were Deputy Sheriffs Logan Tombs, Serafino Piezzi and J. L. Gist. The jury then retired, the eyes of the spectators following them until the door of the room closed upon them and Deputy Sheriff Tombs turned the key in the lock. The hour was a quarter to 9 o’clock. The general presentment that the Jury would be out only a short time caused the crowd of spectators to remain seated for some time. Gradually the seats were vacated until comparatively few people remained. The closing scenes of the trial were memorable.

At a few minutes after the clock in the courthouse dome had struck twelve Monday night the jury in the case of the People of the State of California vs. S. S. Bogle returned the following verdict:

“In the Superior Court of the County of Sonoma, State of California. People of the State of California, plaintiff, vs. S. S. Bogle, defendant.

“We, the jury, find the defendant S. S. Bogle, not guilty. Valentine Watson. foreman.”

The verdict was returned after the jury had been deliberating about three hours and a quarter. At about twenty minutes past 11 the court had the bailiff bring in the jury. His Honor questioned them as to whether they wished any further instructions regarding the law. Several jurors replied in the negative and one stated that they would like to have a little while longer. They were taken back to the room and at midnight they announced that they had agreed upon the verdict stated above.

After Clerk Hall had recorded the verdict and the jurors had affirmed it, the court made the order releasing Dr. Bogle from custody. The Doctor’s friends in the courtroom crowded around him and his brave little wife, who had not left his side during the trying ordeal of the day and shook hands with both. The Doctor shook hands with the jurors as they filed from their seats.

It is understood that the jury before arriving at their verdict took nine ballots and that up the last ballot they stood eleven for acquittal and one for manslaughter.

– Press Democrat, September 26 1900

Read More

courtroom

OUR VERY OWN PERRY MASON

There’s a tale Bill Soberanes loved to tell in his Argus-Courier columns that went something like this:

During Prohibition a lawyer was defending a man accused of bootlegging. When the prosecutor introduced a bottle of the moonshine as evidence the lawyer picked it up, put it to his lips and drank it dry. “That wasn’t whiskey,” he told the court. Case dismissed for lack of evidence.

Odds of that story being true are probably nil (or at least, I can’t find anything close to it in the newspapers of the day) but it’s the kind of thing people liked to say about Gil P. Hall. Most often he was called some riff on being “a colorful character” and people meant that in a nice way. During the 1910s and 1920s he was the top defense attorney in Sonoma county and rarely lost in court, particularly if it involved a jury trial. He was such a legal hotshot that courtrooms were packed when he defended a high-profile case. “There was only one Gil Hall, and I don’t think there will ever be another like him,” said the last surviving pre-Prohibition Petaluma bar owner in 1967. “Some of his cases would make Perry Mason look very tame.”

In the 1920s Hall defended so many liquor scofflaws that he had a reputation as being the bootlegger’s lawyer, but that’s not really fair – it seems he took on any and all. While he’s best known for high-profile cases his bread and butter was mundane legal work – representing people seeking a divorce, handling probate paperwork, and arguing a farmer had a right to dig a culvert under a county road.

He won an acquittal for Fannie Brown, who was charged with running a “house of ill-fame” at First and C streets in Petaluma. In the murder trial of two doctors charged with the death of a woman from an abortion (“the illegal operation”) the courtroom spectators burst into prolonged applause when the jury found them innocent. Even when he lost he usually managed to salvage some kind of victory. The owner of Speedway Hotel in Cotati was caught red-handed selling 72 proof jackass brandy (“with a trace of fuel oil”) and had to pay a fine, but Hall blocked the government from shutting down his business – which continued to be busted for selling hootch year after year.

A man who knew him, Petaluma Justice of the Peace Rolland Webb, said “he won most of his cases by outsmarting the young lawyers who came up against him,” so it’s a pity the newspapers didn’t write up some of his Perry Mason-y courtroom arguments. The one sample we have comes from an unusual case – the county election of 1926.

gumpA recount was ordered because the votes for sheriff were almost tied. Hall and lawyers for the other candidate went over the ballots carefully, agreeing to toss three for being “scurrilous” – the voters had added an obscenity next to a candidate’s name. Then they found someone had written in the name of Andy Gump for Justice of the Peace. Andy Gump was an ultra-popular comic strip character who was a lovable idiot; in the 1920s the storyline had him running silly campaigns for the senate and the presidency. But the name was written on a ballot for Hall’s candidate, so he made a fine speech why it should be accepted:


…Andy Gump is one of the best loved characters in the United States. His name is a household word, and of loved memory. All of his actions have been those of a gentleman… Therefore, I cannot conclude with counsel that the writing of Andrew Gump created an atmosphere of scurrility about this ballot. Whether there is an Andrew Gump in Sonoma county I do not know. If there were more Andrew Gumps, in character and thought, Sonoma county would probably be a better county than it is…

His candidate lost the election by 16 votes, but the Andy Gump ballot was counted.

Gil Hall was in his heyday during the Roaring Twenties although he was past 60 years old (b. 1859 in Missouri). He was president of the County Bar Association 1924-5 and threw lavish, four-hour dinner parties for judges and fellow attorneys on his large houseboat named “Ark of Peace” (!) which was moored on the Petaluma River and was connected to permanent buildings on the wharf. When he would rehearse his courtroom arguments on the boat he was loud enough to frighten passing boaters, so reread the Andy Gump speech and imagine lots of shouting.

In his younger days it was expected he would someday be a Congressman; he was well-connected vis his father-in-law (Petaluma banker Dan Brown) and said to be politically ambitious, being appointed as Petaluma’s postmaster at age 27. But Gilbert P. Hall had a closet with skeletons ready to spill out during any campaign for public office; he was wise not to crack that door open.

The San Francisco Examiner, January 18 1897
The San Francisco Examiner, January 18 1897

This is the obl. Believe-it-or-Not! portion of the article, and not just because of some deed by Gil Hall; it’s also because this chapter of his life was so quickly and utterly forgotten and forgiven. Nothing about it was mentioned in any obituary or by 20th century Hall aficionados like Bill Soberanes – in fact, I don’t think this story’s ever been fully told before; I only stumbled across it while researching the previous article about the county treasurer who may have faked a robbery.

In 1890 Gil P. Hall was elected County Recorder/Auditor. The job was a perfect way for a novice politician to take off his training wheels – all it required was staying out of the way of the desk clerk and accepting payment of the recording fees. He was reelected in 1892 but lost the election of November, 1894. Take note that starting in January 1895 someone else would be running the office.

Every two years the county had used an outside auditor named Baldwin to examine the books of all offices, but in 1895 they hired someone else and he found something strange – there was a huge gap in Hall’s accounts. Except for a few entries made after he first took office, there were no fee payments listed until he lost reelection. Specifically, an entire ledger was missing: “Fee Book 13”.

The Grand Jury heard testimony that sometimes months went by without Hall making a deposit to the county treasury. Also, Baldwin looked at the books only during evenings when Hall was also there. Meanwhile, accounting experts were combing through all transactions during Hall’s four year tenure. Their audit showed that for his second term alone, $10,199.50 had been received but only $5,651.75 was deposited. That meant there was a missing $4613.38 (about $140k today).

County officers were held personally liable for any funds found missing during their term in office, and Hall had Petaluma businessmen who backed him with bonds for significant losses. The county sued them for about $1,200, which represented only the last few months of Hall’s first term – it was now March, 1896, and the clock was ticking down on the four-year statute of limitations for this type of suit.

A few months later the county filed a second lawsuit to recover the $4613.38. That was followed by a third lawsuit for $4.5k to pay for the cost of reconstructing Fee Book 13.

Gil P. Hall was now indicted on two counts of felony embezzlement and free on $1,500 bail bonds.

The story grabbed the laser-like focus of San Francisco’s yellow press, and the Examiner did a full page story on him with the subhed, “Rise and Fall of an Able Man.” According to their story, the formerly mild-mannered Hall had become “a high-riding swashbuckler, who cavaliered it through Petaluma to the astonishment of the wondering townspeople” and was known for throwing dinner parties that “endeared himself to a certain class.”

I will spare Gentle Reader details of the grinding legal gears during 1897-1899, which consumed a week of my precious life as I labored over a spreadsheet in a futile attempt to track all the doings. The Grand Jury found him guilty of embezzlement; the location of his trial was moved to Ukiah and there was a hung jury and a retrial; Hall insisted he didn’t remember anything (including the names of his clerks); his lead defense attorney, ex-Congressman Thomas J. Geary, embraced a strategy of continually barking “objection!” like a yappy dog. The big surprise came in November 1897, when Fee Book 13 was discovered and reportedly was in the Auditor’s office the whole time. This was, of course, conveniently after the facsimile had been reconstructed.

By the turn of the century there was remorse in some corners that the county had pursued restitution instead of just sending him to prison. It was now approaching the statute of limitations from the time of the indictments. Appeals were made to the state Supreme Court to extend the deadlines which the court first denied – then a few weeks later reversed itself and said the county could indeed reopen the case. Oh, law.

Over objections from the District Attorney, the Board of Supervisors finally threw in the towel in 1901, proclaiming there would be no more litigation because it was costing the county too much. That was followed by another Supreme Court ruling that the statute of limitations had indeed run out, and Hall and his bondsmen were not legally bound to pay back any money he allegedly stole.

As was permissible under the law. Hall then presented the county with a bill for his lawyer’s fees and court expenses. The Board agreed to pay him $850, which was the legal max.

Thus: Gil P. Hall not only got away with allegedly filching a small fortune from the public, but the county paid him for the pleasure of having done so. Believe it or Not!

An older – and presumably wiser – Gil Hall was behind the defense table again in 1927, this time accused of bribing witnesses.

The charge this time was that he had paid two 16 year-old boys $30 each to deny they had bought homemade wine from a Petaluma farmer. The Grand Jury handed down two indictments against him, although one was thrown out on a technicality.

On the witness stand the boys contradicted their earlier statements and each other. Hall had/had not given them money; Hall had promised one of the boys he “would take care of him” if he lost his job, or he hadn’t promised anything at all. And then, in true Perry Mason fashion, there was a shocking courtroom confession: One of the boys had a vendetta against Gil Hall because he had defended an auto driver accused of causing the death of his baby brother. “His admission that he had for years had a bitter feeling against the accused Petaluma attorney caused a profound stir,” reported the Argus-Courier.

The Grand Jury retired to the jury room and returned to court six minutes later with a verdict of innocent. It was the shortest jury deliberation anyone could recall.

Although Gil Hall’s professional life centered around the county courthouse in Santa Rosa, he grew up and lived most of his life in Petaluma. Besides Soberanes, fellow A-C columnist Ed Mannion sometimes tipped his hat to Gil for being among the most colorful residents in the city’s history. Mannion wrote, “he once entered the door of a Main Street pharmacy and was met by a fusillade of shots from the druggist’s’ pistol.”

Mannion told a couple of other stories that can be dated to 1913. The Maze Department Store on the corner of Washington and Main had an art department and was selling prints of “September Morn,” a wildly-popular painting of a nude woman standing in a lake – the sort of artwork someone buys while thinking, “this will really class up the joint.”

augustmornThe store had a copy in their window display until “the good ladies trying to protect the town’s morals” (Mannion’s words) protested. Their taking offense apparently offended Hall, who talked the store into placing the picture with its back to the window – but in front of a mirror, so the image was plainly in view from the street. Selling at $1.75 each, the store had trouble keeping up with demand.

(RIGHT: Dressed statue of the goddess Hebe. Courtesy Sonoma County Library)

But Gil was not done with tweaking Petaluma’s blue noses. Outside the department store on the Washington street side was the WCTU water fountain, which had at its top a 5-foot bronze statue of the nude Greek goddess Hebe. With two co-conspirators Gil placed a Mother Hubbard dress over the statue. Wags promptly dubbed the censored statue “August Morn.”

That pre-Prohibition barkeep also said, “if I were a writer, I’d do Gil Hall’s life, and I’d have a best seller on my hands.” Well, get in line, bub – Soberanes and Mannion both wanted to write The Legend of the Fabulous Gil Hall and asked readers to send in Hall stories (apparently no one did). Justice of the Peace Webb had a number of stories so if any member of the Webb family recall an old manuscript up in the attic, contact me.

Gilbert Pine Hall (1859-1932) in 1924. Courtesy Sonoma County Library
Gilbert Pine Hall (1859-1932) in 1924. Courtesy Sonoma County Library

Read More

lean

WHEN THE HIGH DRY WINDS BLOW

The “Diablo Winds” are apparently a Regular Thing now, with the high, dry northeasterly gales ripping through the North Bay and too often creating firestorms. But how common were these damned winds historically?

Start with our three examples that caused major fires: The 2017 Tubbs Fire, the forgotten Great Fire of 1870 and the 1964 Hanly Fire. Beyond those incidents, however, it’s hard to say with much certainty.

First, “Diablo Winds” is a modern term, invented in 1991 (Wikipedia has a good explanation of the meteorology), so looking for that name in the old newspapers is a non-starter. A century ago and more they sometimes called any bad winds “Boreas,” although that was the classical name for a cold north wind often accompanied by rains. But the bigger problem is that our ancestors didn’t care much about recording wind directions or speeds; while they diligently kept records of rainfall down to the hundredth of an inch, apparently no one in Sonoma County had an anemometer in the old days.

Searches of the Santa Rosa and Healdsburg newspapers turned up surprisingly few historic windstorms that match the Diablo pattern with certainty (I limited my research to destructive weather events during the California autumn months with no rain mentioned). If I find more I’ll add it here and flag the update in the title of this article, but I think it’s safe to presume these big winds weren’t very common. Sources of all newspaper items are transcribed below.

The most surprising discovery was 1871, the year following the Great Fire. Once again there were “large fires were seen in the direction of Napa and Sonoma…It was the hardest blow ever experienced in this locality.”

“A vicious wind” in 1887, which might also have been a freak tornado, took down a two-story hotel at Los Guilucos that was under construction. “Those who witnessed the disaster say the sides and interior of the building seemed to melt away before the blast and the roof pausing in mid air a moment like a hawk hovering above its prey, fell with a crash that was heard for miles.”

There are two accounts of the two-day storm in 1892; rain was mentioned in Petaluma but not elsewhere. It was “one of the severest [windstorms] felt in Sonoma county for a number of years,” the Sonoma Democrat reported, with hundreds of mature trees downed. An elderly woman died of fright.

“The dry north winds that had been blowing for the last four or five days culminated on Sunday afternoon in a violent wind storm,” the Healdsburg Tribune noted in 1900, making it sure bet to be classified as a Diablo Wind. Then a few weeks later, an even more destructive wind hit the town following a light rain: “The wind almost reached the power of a cyclone and is said by old settlers to have been the speediest blow ever experienced here. Houses rocked on their foundations as if shaken by an earthquake.”

Our last historic windstorm conveniently also provides our obl. Believe-it-or-Not! finish. This item is from the Press Democrat in 1919:

The heavy wind storm of Wednesday night did many queer things, but probably none more novel will be reported than that experienced on the A. C. Hull ranch near town. A barn on the place contained a horse. During the height of the storm the barn was blown over, making two complete turns and landing right side up, uninjured. The horse was left standing without any injury where the barn had stood.

 

sources
 

The Storm.

A terrific wind storm prevailed throughout the county on Thursday night, during which large fires were seen in the direction of Napa and Sonoma, and it is feared serious damage was done in those localities. About Santa Rosa, sign boards were demoralized to a considerable extent, that of the Kessing Hotel being torn from its fastenings and broken to pieces. Those of the telegraph office and Santa Rosa Book Store, were blown down. The tin roof of the store occupied by Carithers & Martin, was transferred to the building of E. T. Farmer, next adjoining. Wind mills upon the premises of Windfield Wright, Henry Worthington and Adam Shane, were blown down, and orchards through the Township literally stripped of fruit. It was the hardest blow ever experienced in this locality, and our people are fortunate in getting off with damages so slight.

– Sonoma Democrat, October 14 1871

 

HIGH WIND —One of the most violent windstorm ever known in this region raged last Tuesday. It subsided during the night without causing any material damage in any way. But it made a lively dust.

– Sonoma Democrat, November 20 1880

 

A Vicious Wind.

The new two-story hotel at Los Guilucos town was razed to the ground during a violent wind storm which occurred there about 7:45 o’clock Thursday evening. If the building was as substantial as its appearances would indicate it certainly must have been a vicious wind, and the descriptions given by the workmen who were on the spot are now too highly colored. The men employed in tinning the roof had not been out of the building three minutes when the crash came. The air was full of flying timbers, some of the largest of which weighed several hundred pounds and were hurled high above the tops of the trees and lodged on top of the hotel before it fell. It seemed to be the nature of a whirlwind, and the doors and windows of the structure being open its interior formed an amphitheatre for the sports and athletic feats of Boreas. Those who witnessed the disaster say the sides and interior of the building seemed to melt away before the blast and the roof pausing in mid air a moment like a hawk hovering above its prey, fell with a crash that was heard for miles. Not a timber was left standing and all that remained to mark the spot where had once stood the first building in Los Guilucos town was a few pieces of roof timbers held together by long narrow strips of twisted and misshaped tin. Other reports received from the valley are somewhat contradictory of the nature of the storm. A gentleman residing within two miles of the hotel says the wind was somewhat stronger than a zephyr, but not of sufficient violence to cause him or his family any alarm concerning the safety of their residence and outbuildings. The damage it is estimated will not be over 4,000. Messrs. Ludwig & Kroncke visited the scene of the disaster Friday.

– Sonoma Democrat, November 26 1887

 

Early Monday morning Petaluma was visited by the swiftest and most disastrous windstorm known for many years. The wind did not only whistle, but it howled and groaned through every chink accessible. This account will read very true to many Petalumans, for most of them were kept awake by the ceaseless noise of boreas and his companion, the rain. Trees were uprooted in many parts of the town. Robert Spotswood, on Keller street had a pepper and an acacia tree blown down. A eucalyptus was blown from the sidewalk in front of the Newburgh residence on Liberty street. A poplar was uprooted at Father Cleary’s, and many other trees. The fence was blown from in front of the D street school. Also the fence surrounding the Sweed property on Sixth and B streets. The scaffolding left by the carpenters on the handsome Haubrick residence now in course of construction was scattered far into the street. Not satisfied with this, the wind sailed three miles out of town and lifted a goodly section of roof off the old adobe built by General Vallejo in the early days and now used as a home by M. Riely. This old building was perfectly strong and secure and it must have been a terrific wind to carry that roof as it did.

– Sonoma Democrat, December 3 1892

 

Effects of the Storm of Sunday Night.

The storm last Saturday and especially Sunday and Sunday night was one of the severest felt in Sonoma county for a number of years.

Trees were blown down all over town Sunday night. Near the corner of the Baptist Church, a large maple, which Street Commissioner Cozad will remember very well, blew down across B street.

The top of a large pine tree, standing near the residence of R. M. Swain, broke off about twenty-five feat from the top, and in falling just missed the house. The fragment was fully one foot in diameter, which shows the force of the wind.

Two large trees standing near the home of O. H. Hoag were blown down. They struck the house and rather demolished the kitchen.

A tree on William Hopper’s place fell Sunday night and carried with it a large section of Mr. Hopper’s front fence.

Keegan Bros, heard the wind whistle to the tune of $100 Sunday night. The force of the wind tore off the front sign hanging to the awning and carrying it in struck and broke the beautiful plate glass window.

The wind also played havoc with the sky-light of the engine house, picking it up and setting it down rather roughly where it did not belong, breaking every pane of glass. A number of panes of glass were also broken in the courthouse.

Carithers & Forsythe and George F. King have the turbulent elements of Sunday night to blame for misplacing their signs.

Beldin & Hehir’s sign, aided by the gentle zephyrs, drifted from its moorings and tapped the window of the postoffice and the adjacent transom a little too hard,

A passenger on the down train from Guerneville says that all hands were required to get off and help remove two large trees that had fallen across the track a few miles from Guerneville.

About seventy trees are down across the road from Duncan Mills to Guerneville, and one citizen from Bodega says the storm Saturday and Sunday was the severest felt in that windy locality for years. It blew down most of the fences in Bodega, together with several trees and old out-buildings that were insecurely anchored.

The Pacific Methodist College came near being scalped when the gale caught one corner of the tin roof and tore off about six hundred square feet of the roof.

A large maple in front of the residence of Dr. Savage, on Fourth street, succumbed to the breeze.

Many windmills throughout the valley got more wind than they could stand, and went to the ground, and one barn was blown down.

No very heavy damage to property is reported.

The saddest occurrence of all was the death of Mrs. Clark, elsewhere reported, who was afflicted with heart troubles, and it is believed her death was precipitated by nervousness and fright occasioned by the storm.

– Sonoma Democrat, December 3 1892

 

The dry north winds that had been blowing for the last four or five days culminated on Sunday afternoon in a violent wind storm. The winds and the intense heat of the sun have been of great advantage to prune drying, condensing into a few days what would take weeks to dry. It’s an ill wind that blows evil to the fruit dryer.

– Healdsburg Tribune, September 27 1900

 

THE STORM.
Violent Windstorm Does Considerable Damage Tuesday Night.

The rain that had been gently falling for the previous few days, culminated in a terrific windstorm on Tuesday night. Old Bordeas went on a toot, tearing down signs, breaking windows, uprooting trees and doing damage to a greater or less extent in all directions. The wind almost reached the power of a cyclone and is said by old settlers to have been the speediest blow ever experienced here. Houses rocked on their foundations as if shaken by an earthquake and sleep became an unknown quantity with many residents. The damage to ornamental trees must have been considerable in the aggregate. The electric lights were snuffed out at about 11 o’clock but resumed business a few hours later. The rainfall for Tuesday night was 1.53, and 9.11 for the season. The symmetrical circle of umbrella trees on the Plaza was broken, two of the trees falling prone on the sward, and the others being blown out of perpendicular. Silberstein’s sign became loosened at one end and becoming a plaything in the power of the winds, smashed much of the glass front of the store into smithereens. The early morning hours indicated that the proprietors had gone out of business, and had moved their signs to other parts of the city, Carl Muller, who has kept a record of the rainfall for many years, reports the windstorm as severe, if not more so, than any previous windstorm within his memory.

– Healdsburg Tribune, November 22 1900

 

BARN MOVED BY WIND, BUT HORSE REMAINS BEHIND

The heavy wind storm of Wednesday night did many queer things, but probably none more novel will be reported than that experienced on the A. C. Hull ranch near town. A barn on the place contained a horse. During the height of the storm the barn was blown over, making two complete turns and landing right side up, uninjured. The horse was left standing without any injury where the barn had stood.

– Press Democrat, November 29 1919

Read More