saloon, during which quarrel he was fatally shot by the husband of the woman, who, on coming from an adjoining room into the bar room where the quarrel was going on, fired upon and killed Smith. John S. Barclay was the name of the murderer. The direction given to the trial, and other events which fol lowed, was determined principally by the at titude of James W. Coffroth, a popular man in the camps, who had just been elected to the State senate. Coffroth, in his regard for his deceased friend, allowed his passions to dominate. He vehemently demanded that vengeance he meted out to Barclay for the crime. The mob was stirred to frenzy by Coffroth. No thought, however, was enter tained of visiting punishment upon the of fender without a show at least of fairness. The crowd gathered about the jail, and a judge, marshal, and jury of twelve persons were impressed into service. The iron doors were then forced open, and Barclay, who had hoped to make his escape through the crowd, was seized and carried off by the excited people, amid cries and imprecations. In the impromptu trial, Coffroth acted as the prosecuting attorney, and John Oxley, a man of firm and noble purposes, defended the prisoner. Coffroth was insistent upon revenge, and in his shrewd way invoked in behalf of the people the law, "An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth; a life for a life." The text, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," was also used to lend strength and the semblance of sanc tity to his case. Despite the protests of Oxley and his appeals to the people, asking them to reflect on what they were about to do, amid cries for the life of the prisoner, Barclay was told to prepare himself for the execution which awaited him according to the sentence. The sheriff of the county, J. M. Stewart, made an ineffectual attempt to rescue the prisoner, but was beaten back and hustled away from the scene. While the sheriff was being thus fought off, the pris oner was hanged. His arms were left un-
pinioned. His convulsive clutching at the rope, while hanging in mid-air was greeted with derisive cries and yells from those who looked on. This, in brief, is the story of one of the most barbarous cases in the annals of lynch law. Another extreme case was that of the lynching of a woman for the crime of mur der committed on July 5, 1851, at Downieville. The story of this revolting case is told by Mr. Hittell in his excellent History of California (Vol. 3, page 307), as follows: "It was one of the sequels of a great Fourth of July celebration. John B. Weller, afterwards Governor of the State, had been announced to deliver an address, and a very large crowd congregated to hear him—the miners and settlers coming in from all the camps in the neighborhood. After the regular exercises of the day, there was much drinking and carousing; and in the evening, when it began to grow dark, a number of the revelers started out staggering through the streets, hooting and howling, beating on houses and breaking open doors here and there as they went. Among other places attacked was a house occupied by a' Mexican woman, called Juanita, and a countryman oi hers, who kept a monte table. One of the revelers, and perhaps the most hilarious of them, was a Scotchman of large size and great physical strength, known as Jack Can non. He seems to have been acquainted with the woman, or at any rate, went to make her a visit the next morning. Some said his object was to apologize and pay for any damage he had done; but this does not appear to be probable. Whatever his object may have been, he was seen to go up to the door, where the woman and her Mexican friend were standing, and was heard to ad dress her with a vulgar expression. She im mediately turned back into the house and entered a side room, leaving Cannon lean ing with a hand on each side of the doorway, conversing with the man. In a moment afterwards, however, she came back, holding
