Santa Barbara County History Transcribed by Peggy Hooper This file is part of the California Genealogy & History Archives http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cagha/index.htm These electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit or presentation by other organizations. Persons or organizations desiring to use this material for non-commercial purposes, MUST obtain the written consent of the contributor, OR the legal representative of the submitter. All persons donating to this site retain the rights to their own work. Source: A Memorial and Biographical History of the Counties of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura, California by Yda Addis Storke Published in 1891 in Chicago by the Lewis Publishing Co. CRIMES. Since the dispersion of the bands of outlaws gathered during the disorder of the transition period Santa Barbara has been, all things considered, reasonably free from crime. There have been notable cases, but these were of individual, rather than public, bearing. The most conspicuous crimes committed hereabouts were the following: In January, 1864, Mr. and Mrs. Wilson Corliss were murdered, and their bodies consumed in their dwelling; the criminals were not discovered. Later in that year, Samuel Barthman was robbed and murdered, and his body concealed in the woods between Lompoc and La Purisima. His murderers were discovered and brought to justice. In June, 1868, one Bonilla, a young man of twenty years, shot to death Mr. Domingo Abadie, a respected and prominent citizen, in a quarrel Bonilla was sentenced to thirty-five years' imprison- ment. In January, 1874, William Shedd, a cruel and intemperate husband, stabbed his wife to death, and then blew his own brains out. Perhaps the most flagrant case was the murder of John C. Norton, a rancher on Rincon Point; Norton's wife h:id an intrigue with one Jack Cotton, a farm-hand of her husband, and the two killed Norton and buried him in the sand-hills. Then, giving out that he had died in Los Angeles, they disposed of his property and left the country together. The crime was discovered, and the guilty pair captured in Nevada, and returned to Santa Barbara for trial, being sentenced to imprisonment for life. There have been a few murders of minor notoriety, the perpetrators in some cases remaining undiscovered. There was, too, early in the '80's, a good deal of excitement over the stage robberies committed in the western portion of the county by Dick Fellows. He was a man of education, who from confinement wrote very good articles for publication. His characteristics and the desperate efforts he made for liberty aroused much sympathy for him, notwithstanding which he was sent to prison. The crime, the case par excellence of Santa Barbara was THE GRAY-GLANCEY MUEDEE. This was one of those criminal cases which become causes celebres throughout the State. Theodore M. Glancey, a native of Illinois, came to California in 1873, and was for a time editor and general manager of the Los Angeles Herald. Resigning this position, he bad removed to Placer County, and here and in Sutter County be was engaged in the journalistic profession. After a few years he was tendered the editorship of the Press at Santa Barbara, and, accepting, he removed here, conducting the Press with the same devotion to truth and duty that had marked his career hitherto. He was a veteran of the civil war, a man of nerve, and true to his convictions. He was, further, a man of liberal education, with legal training, and just views of matters in general. He was polite and urbane in manner, notwithstanding the positive character of his mentality. Clarence Gray came to this county in 1870, and was immediately recognized as its natural leader by the lawless element composed of the roughs, the gamblers and disorderly parties in general. While there were not more than 200 of these characters, they were formidable, holding in many instances the balance of power. Gray had a bad record, so far as it was known. It was asserted that his real name was Patrick McGinnis, and it was understood that be had been closely connected with the Molly Maguire assassins in Pennsylvania, which State he had been obliged to leave. He was reckless, unscrupu- lous, audacious, brilliant, enterprising, witty and obtrusive, being ready always to thrust himself into notice. Ostensibly a lawyer, his knowledge of the law consisted mainly of an understanding of its defects and weaknesses, whereby he became the natural defender of violators of the law. Like all men of that class, he relied upon personal prowess for security in his personal rights, and be bad committed personal assaults on many occa- sions. It is said that he had been arrested more than twenty times for breaking the peace. While nominally a Catholic, he beat a Catholic priest to insensibility for a reproof justly administered, and was fined therefor. When a fire occurred in the Press office, he was so strongly suspected of having caused it that he left the State for a year or two, but returned and resumed his former career. On one occasion the Republican party nom- inated him for District Attorney, and, in consequence of his bad repute, a public meeting was held to consider the means of defeating his election, which, it was deemed, would endanger the safety of the community. Nevertheless, so strong was the lawless party that be came within seven votes of election. When the new constitution was adopted in 1880, the country was in doubt whether the officials elected the previous year should com- plete the usual terms, or whether a new set would be elected. Pending the decision the Republicans held a convention and nominated candidates for the supposed vacancies, among them Clarence Gray for District Attorney. When the Supreme Court decided that no election was necessary that season, the Press, of which Mr. Glancey was editor, comment- ing upon the reasons for satisfaction therefor. said : " Not the least of these in this county is the fact that the Republicans here will be relieved of the necessity of defeating the can- didate for District Attorney. The nomination was disgraceful in every respect, and while it is extremely disagreeable for earnest Republicans to take such a course in a presi- dential year, there is no difference of opinion among those who have the good of the party at heart. They are convinced that all such candidates should be beaten, and Republican conventions taught, if they do not realize it already, that the decent people of Santa Bar- bara County will not submit to having the officer for the administration of justice chosen from among the hoodlums and lawbreakers." While this language was moder- ate, compared to what had been printed many times before, Gray's friends urged that it was a gratuitous insult, as no election was to take place, and Gray set about finding the party responsible for the article. Meeting John P. Stearns in Judge Hatch's office, he inquired if Stearns was responsible, and was met with a prompt " I am, sir!" Nevertheless, some- thing, possibly the number present, induced him to defer shooting until a more convenient season. Later, he met Stearns at home, but again postponed his proposed pun- ishment. On the evening following the issue of the article, Gray met Glancey, and in- quired if he was responsible for the article in question. Glancey replied in the affirma- tive, whereupon Gray drew a revolver and attempted to shoot, when Glancey caught his wrists, saying, " You shall not draw a revolver on me; I am unarmed." A bystander sepa- rated them, but Gray again leveled his revolver and fired at Glancey whilst retreating through the door of the Occidental Hotel; the ball took fatal effect, striking Glancey in the wrist, and thence passing into the abdomen, and out near the hip. Glancey's vitality en- abled him to walk to a hotel in the same block, where he fell. Gray meanwhile fol- lowed him, endeavoring to obtain another shot. Glancey was attended by three physicians, but was past help, and died the next day. While the lawless element justified Gray's deed, the better portion of the community emphatically denounced it. The press of the State, too, condemned the dastardly act unequivocally, as did the pulpit unitedly. Yet hardly were the funeral ceremonies over before Gray's friends were planning an active defense, $4,000 were raised to employ counsel, and all the technicalities of the law were invoked to delay or thwart justice. Although he had uttered numerous threats that Stearns or Glancey must die before night, Gray pleaded self-defense and sought to prove by witnesses that Glancey made the first attack. The jury failed to agree, and the case was transferred to San Mateo County, where Gray was found guilty and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. Eminent legal talent was employed in this trial. One most censurable feature of the case was that Gray was permitted many privileges seldom granted to persons on trial for high crimes, in that he was allowed, during his term of incarceration, to visit processions, shows, etc., and to visit and dine at the houses of his friends. His partisans made application for a new trial, which was granted on such singular grounds as to become historical. This feature is explained in the appended statement of Justice Thornton: " The trial commenced on the first of June, 1881, and terminated on the morning of the 12th of the same month, about 9 o'clock, when the jury rendered the verdict, and were discharged. As soon as the jury was complete, they were, by the order of the court, placed in charge of the sheriff, and instructed as to their duties. They remained in charge of the sheriff, not being allowed to separate until they were discharged on the morning of the 12th. After the jury was complete, and before the cause was submitted to them, on the afternoon of the 11th of June, about 5 o'clock, a period of about eight days, four five-gallon kegs of beer were brought into the room at the Tremont House, where the jury was kept by the sheriff, of which about seventeen and a half gallons (of the beer) were drank by them; that during the same period a two-gallon demijohn of wine was brought in and drank by them; that during the same period some of the jurors drank claret wine, amounting to three bottles, at their meals; while some of them drank whiskey at their meals; that all this drinking was done before the case was submitted to them on the afternoon of the 11th of June; that on the 11th of June, during the noon recess, two of the jurors procured each a flask of whiskey; that one of the jurors (Price, the foreman) drank nothing; that all the drinking by the jurors was without the permission of the court, or the consent of the defendant, or of the counsel engaged in the cause, and, in fact, without the knowledge of either of them ; that all the beer, wine, and whiskey drank were procured by such of the jurors as desired it of their own notion and at their own expense; that the verdict was agreed on about 8:30 o'clock on the morning of the 12th. Further, the evidence affords strong reason to suspect that one of the jurors drank so much while deliberating on the verdict as to unlit him for the proper discharge of his duty. * * * For the reason above indicated, the judgment and order are reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial." This conclusion was concurred in by Justices Myrick, McKinstry, Ross and Sharp- stein. The third trial of Gray occurred in the same county, in December, 1882, and it resulted in his acquittal. The summer of 1890 has been stigmatized by two very flagrant murders � that of " Billy " Kays by Eduardo Espinosa, in a street brawl, and the unprovoked slaying of Mary Dezirello, an innocent and worthy girl, brutally shot by a worthless fellow named Ramon Lopez, in revenge for her refusal to accept his addresses. The wanton and das- tardly character of this crime so aroused the citizens that Lopez was taken to Los Angeles to avert a lynching. These two murderers are now on trial.