Page:History of California, Volume 3 (Bancroft).djvu/210

192 blood-stains at the time of his arrest; that he had tried to sell his shirt during the night; and that many of his actions had seemed strange and suspicious to his companions. Beyond his own statements and protestations of innocence, there was no evidence in his favor, or against any other person. Though circumstantial, the proofs were strong; sufficiently so, I think, to justify the severest penalty. The case, however, dragged its slow length along, with no perceptible progress, as was usual in California, through 1829 and 1830. Rubio was nominally imprisoned, but during much of the time seems to have worked as a servant about the presidio, with abundant opportunities for escape. When Victoria came he intrusted the prosecution to José María Padrés, who began active operations in May 1831. Alférez Vallejo, who had declined to serve as fiscal, now made some efforts in behalf of Rubio; but his testimony and that of others called in to substantiate it tended merely to show irregularity in one of the former proceedings, and that another man, having been charged with similar crimes at San Francisco, might be guilty in this instance. No new evidence was adduced in Rubio's favor. He was defended by Pliego, a friend of Victoria, who on account of technical irregularities, and because no one had seen his client commit the crime, asked only that some other penalty than death should be imposed. Padrés, an enemy of Victoria and friend of Vallejo, expressed no doubt of Rubio's guilt, but he also urged that imprisonment be substituted for death. Rafael Gomez reviewed the testimony at some length, pronounced the accused to be guilty, and recommended that he be shot behind the house of Olivas. The sentence was finally approved by Victoria and executed August 1st, at 11.30 A. M.

The case of Rubio, as just related from the original