Shooting of Samuel J. Finley of Guerneville, Sonoma County, California

                                22 July 1876

Petaluma Paper

July 28, 1876 - On the 22nd, H. Epperly, saloon keeper, and a man reckless
in the use of firearms, had several wordy altercations with S.J. Finley in
reference to transactions between Epperly and Finley's sons and had been
heard to threaten Finley if he said or did more about it.

About dark the difficulty was renewed in the street before the saloon when
Epperly drew a revolver and fired at Finley killing him almost instantly.
Dr. Wooley conducted a post mortem examination. Epperly was arrested on
Sunday. Finley will be buried today at Pleasant Hill cemetery by the side
of his wife. He leaves a family of 7 children. Five days ago word came that
the eldest son W.W. Finley had been found by the roadside in Tehama Co.
with his neck broken by a fall from his horse. Mr. Finley 51 years old, a
native of Indiana.

The Sonoma Democrat, 29 July 1876

FATAL AFFRAY AT GUERNEVILLE

Sam. Findley Killed by Hi. Epperly

A difficulty occurred at the town of Guerneville in this county, on last
Saturday evening, between Hi. Epperly and Sam Findley, resulting in the
death of the latter from a pistol shot through the heart. There are
different accounts about the matter, and the whole truth cannot be known
until the matter has undergone a judicial investigation. A correspondent
gives the following account:

"Hi. Epperly shot Sam Findley through the heart on Saturday night last. The
shooting occurred about half-past seven o'clock. The origin of the trouble
seemed to be that one of the Findley's boys owed a certain sum of money to
Epperly, and the latter threatened to have notices printed all over the
county about the young man not paying his bill. Sam Findley abused him with
high words for spoiling the reputation of his young boy, and told him as
soon as he was able he would pay him. On the evening of the killing,
Epperly, while under the influence of liquor, hunted Findley all over town,
and finally called him out of Rube Williams' saloon. Findley said he would
be out as soon as he had finished his game of cards. Epperly then dared him
to come out. He stepped out and told Epperly that he did not have anything,
but he Epperly could shoot if he wanted to. Hi called out I have no pistol,
and slipped up and fired the fatal shot which sent one of his fellow
creatures to his grave. On demand of a citizen our brave constable, Tom
Pippin, was afraid to arrest the guilty party, and only after repeated
demands was prevailed upon to do so. After being shot, Findley pulled out a
small pocket knife and ran after his assailant and cut him slightly in one
or two places upon the breast."

Another account from parties who claim to have witnessed the difficulty is
that the parties had had sharp words through the day about the matter in
controversy, and that Findley dared Epperly to meet him half way in the
street; that Epperly advanced half way and Findley then dared him to come
across, which he did, with a pistol in his hands. It is said that Findley
then jumped at Epperly and attempted to knock his arm up in which was the
pistol and at the same time cut him with his pocket knife; about this time
the pistol fired. That Findley stood a few seconds and fell dead at his
feet, shot through the heart. Mr. Epperly was arrested and brought to Santa
Rosa yesterday by Sheriff Wright and is now in jail. We saw him this
morning and though he has two cuts on his breast--one an inch or two in
length near the pit of his stomach and the other about a half inch,
perhaps, on or near the left nipple, he is able to be up. He says there is
another cut somewhere about the hip or thigh, we do not remember which. Mr.
Epperly says he acted purely in self defense. Findley was about 55 years of
age and Epperly is some twenty-eight or thirty. Both have resided in the
county for a number of years and have families. There was a jury of inquest
summoned but at this writing we have not heard the verdict. As the matter
will undergo a judicial investigation and all the facts of the case can
only be known then, we forbear any comments.

The Santa Rosa Times

THE PISTOL'S DEADLY WORK

Homicide at Guerneville--Coroner's Inquest

It is a sad thought to know that a fellow many has lost his life by some
providential occurrence; it is a sadder thought to know that a person loses
his life by carelessness; and it is a yet sadder thought to know that a
fellow being has been slain by a follow being.

A sad and fatal affray occurred at Guerneville last Saturday evening,
between Hi. S. Epperly and Samuel J. Finley, in which Epperly shot, and
instantly killed Finley. The full particulars are not yet known, and though
there are many different stories, these facts seem to be most generally
believed: Several days before the shooting, it seems these men had hard
words about a horse trade, but at the time of the quarrel nothing was said
or done by either of the parties to provoke a blow. On Saturday last
Epperly saw Finley in town and called to him to come and they would settle
the matter. Finley said you come over here, meaning Reub. Williams Saloon,
just across the street. The reply by Epperly was I will meet you half way.
It seems, whether by mutual consent or otherwise, that both parties
advanced a little, but that Finley on reaching the edge of the porch
stopped, while Epperly came across the street to where Finley was standing,
and that Epperly had his pistol in his hand when crossing the street.

He came right up to Finley and the two came together. A pistol shot was
heard and Finley fell his face to the ground, shot through the heart.
Another report of the matter is that Finley, Jr. owed a bill of a few
dollars to Epperly, and that Epperly called on Finley, Sr. for the money,
and from this the trouble grew.

Coroner's Jury was summoned and an inquest was held over Finley's body. The
Jury heard the testimony of ten or twelve witnesses and found the deceased
was Samuel J. Finley, that he was a native of Indiana, 55 years of age, and
that he came to his death on Saturday evening about 8 o'clock from a pistol
wound inflicted by Hi. S. Epperly.

Both of the parties have been citizens of the county for a long time, and
both were married men. Epperly has employed Judges Sonthard & Thomas for
his defense. The preliminary examination has not been held, but will be, we
hear, the last of the week when, no doubt, the facts of the case will be
more fully brought out.

The Sonoma Democrat, 29 July 1876

The Guerneville Homicide

Guerneville, July 25th, 1876

We, the citizens of Guerneville, assembled in mass meeting, can but regret
the circumstances which brought one of our respected fellow-citizens,
Samuel J. Finley, to an untimely death.

We beg to offer, to the afflicted relatives, and to those orphans, who were
so cruelly robbed at the hands of H.S. Eperly, of a kind protector and an
indulgent father, our sincere consolation and sympathy.

And, further, that we censure the course adopted by our County Sheriff, in
setting aside the warrant issued by the Justice of this Township, and in
taking the prisoner out of its jurisdiction.

Such a course, we believe, to have been unwarranted and unjustified, for
although, being bereft of our fellow-being, nothing but justice should have
been meted out to him, and nothing in the language or actions of the people
of this section would warrant any such proceedings.

We request to consider the expenses, which would fall on quite a number of
our citizens; the loss of time and trouble it would occasion them, who need
their day's wages for support, other than dance idle attendance on a
lengthy

trial.

(Signed,) J.N. Keran, Thos. T. Heald, Jno. W. Bagley, W.H. Sinclair, A.
Line, L.W. Simmons, J.A. Wooley, J.M. Miller, R. Williams, Jas. E. Sweet,
T.B. Rowland, Bradford Bell, John Folks, E.W. Clark, Dan Guerne, S. Olson,
Jake Selling, Jacob Achors, L. Thompson, N.E. Mannings, Geo. Guerne, T.J.
Butts and John Taggart.

The Sonoma Democrat 29 July 1876

Card from Sheriff Wright

Editors Sonoma Democrat:--In reply to an article published in the Santa
Rosa Times to a number of respectable citizens of Guerneville, censuring my
course in bringing H.S. Epperly to the Sonoma County Jail before an
examination could be had in that township. I have this to say, viz: On
Sunday morning about two o'clock A.M. I received the following letter from
Guerneville:

"TO THE SHERIFF OF SONOMA COUNTY:

DEAR SIR:--A murder has been committed here and you are requested

to come here immediately.

JAS. F. OLIVER

For the People."

In compliance with the above request I started forthwith and arrived at
Guerneville about 7 o'clock A.M. Soon after my arrival, the Constable of
Redwood township delivered me the warrant of arrest for H.S. Epperly, which
had been issued by the Justice of the Peace at said township and requested
me to take charge of the said Epperly; that he had two men guarding
Epperly's house, and that he wanted to get them released. I took the
warrant, arrested Epperly, and brought him to Santa Rosa to jail on the
same day that I left here. Justice can be meted out to Epperly in Santa
Rosa as well as in Guerneville. I did not set aside any proceedings which
had been taken by the authorities of Guerneville.

I am conscious of having pursued the proper course and have no apologies to
make for my actions.

I was sent for by the people of Guerneville, the warrant was delivered up
to me when I arrived there. I arrested the man accused of the murder, and
instead of moving the jail to Guerneville, I moved Epperly to it at Santa
Rosa.

JOSEPH WRIGHT

Santa Rosa, July 27, 1876.

The Sonoma Democrat 29 July 1876

Card From Constable Pippin

Guerneville, July 25, 1876

EDS. DEMOCRAT:-I beg leave to correct a few statements that occurred in the
account of the Findley and Epperly case, in last Monday's issue of your
paper. The writer of that article must have been misinformed in regard to
the arrest of Mr. Epperly, for he says, "On demand of a citizen our brave
Constable, Tom Pippin, was afraid to arrest the guilty party, and only
after repeated demands was prevailed upon to do so." Now, the fact of the
matter is, I was away from home when the news of the killing came to me,
and I had to go home on business. I started home and on the road met Mr.
Oliver and he said, "Pippin, ain't you going to arrest Epperly?" I asked
him what he had done, and he said, "killed Sam Findley." I then said, "why
did you not arrest him?" and he replied, "you are an officer of the law."
He then left. I went home, put on my coat and took a pair of handcuffs and
started. By this time three other men had come after me. I then went down
to Mr. Epperly's house and found him in bed; I then arrested him and put a
guard over him till the next morning, when a warrant was issued and I
served it on him. About that time Sheriff Wright came up and I delivered
him into his hands.

T.U. PIPPIN

The Sonoma Democrat 5 August 1876

CARD FROM J.F. OLIVER

EDS. SONOMA DEMOCRAT:--My attention having been called in the cards of
Sheriff Wright and Constable Pippin, and as there are some statements
contained therein that are somewhat at variance with each other, I, having
something to do in the matter, beg leave through your columns to make the
following statement:

On the evening in question, immediately after the shooting occurred, I
requested a bystander to go for Pippin. Some time passed, and he was not
coming. I went and found him at one of his neighbors but a few steps from
home. He was an officer, and knew of the crime, but was doing nothing, so I
asked him, "Aren't you going to arrest Epperly" He said, "Whey don't some
of the rest arrest him?" He then asked, "Is Finley dead?" I replied that he
was. He said, "You can arrest him as well as I can." I replied, "It is your
duty; you are an officer of the law." Soon after another citizen went and
returned without him. I then, with two other citizens, went for him, but as
he had left home in the opposite direction from the accused, we did not
find him for some time. On his arrival he merely sat down and talked with
him (Epperly), and only after I, in the presence of the prisoner demanded
his arrest, did he arrest him. If he (as he claims) was disposed to act in
accordance with his duty, why did it take him to exceed an hour and yet not
be started. While the time passed between my first and second trips after
Pippin, I wrote the note published in Sheriff Wright's card, and dispatched
a messenger with it. Before it was answered by the Sheriff, a warrant had
been issued, and as Pippin says, had been served. This was returnable
forthwith, but as the Coroner's Inquest was called before the magistrate,
he could not answer until that was over. Pippin claims that he, having the
business of the inquest to attend to, turned the prisoner over to the
Sheriff with the express understanding that he was to keep the prisoner
here until after the inquest, to appear. This was the general
understanding. However, just as the testimony was over and all were
watching the result, the Sheriff goes and hurries the prisoner off without
answering the charge in any shape. This unlawful proceeding very naturally
gave rise to suspicion, and from this fact have all the subsequent reports
and acts arose.

From the above, it is very evident that someone is censurable, and who it
is, if only one of them, the public must judge. If the pleas is put forward
that fears were entertained of violence, why did the Sheriff, after (as he
claims) arresting the prisoner go around the streets, leaving the prisoner
without reasonable protection or guard, for at least half an hour? Now the
people of Guerneville generally are law-abiding citizens, and in the
present case only ask the strict enforcement of the law by the respective
officers, and as legal proceedings, properly commenced, have not been
obeyed, with no reasonable excuse therefore, after more than a week's time
has elapsed, the people here, as well as of the county generally, watch
with a jealous eye all of the movements in the proceedings. The justice can
be meted out elsewhere is but a meager excuse for the proceedings taken.

JAS. F. OLIVER

Guerneville, July 31st, 1876

The Sonoma Democrat 12 August 1876

Sheriff Wright and the Epperly Case

Santa Rosa, August 7th, 1876

EDS. DEMOCRAT:-The card published by Sheriff Wright, in your paper, in
regard to the arrest of Hi Epperly and his lodgment in the county jail at
Santa Rosa has called forth a reply from some one, whose article is
published in the Santa Rosa Times, and from another whose communication is
in the Russian River Flag, and also from Mr. Oliver, who publishes a card
in the DEMOCRAT. These communications I deem worthy of some notice lest
they might convey a false impression to the public concerning the action of
our County Sheriff and his duties. I have always thought that the tongue
was intended for a divine organ and to speak the truth, but the devil often
plays upon it, and these cases are striking examples of the fact. I am not
particularly anxious to get into a controversy in regard to the matter, but
it is a privilege which any citizen of the county has, and it is his duty,
to uphold and defend the officers of the law if he deems they have done
their duty. In this case I think Sheriff Wright has done his duty. He did
that which any other peace officer would have done under the same or
similar circumstances. Having been apprized of the fact that a murder had
been committed in his county, and being requested by the people of the
locality where the transaction occurred to come immediately, he lost no
time in complying with the call which had been made, and performing his
duty as provided by law. Some fault-finding persons, however, who are
prompted more by malice than anything else, have set up a plea that the act
of the Sheriff in bringing Epperly to the jail at Santa Rosa before an
examination could be had before the chief magistrate of Guerneville, would
put witnesses and other persons interested "to unnecessary expense in
dancing idle attendance on a long trial," etc. What unnecessary expense has
been incurred by any citizen of Guerneville thus far? None whatever except
the voluntary expense of a few insane persons who conceived the idea that
Sheriff Wright would not bring the prisoner to jail, as it was his sworn
duty to do, and followed him to see, as they say, that he did. The author
of the article in the Russian River Flag intimates that this feeling arose
in consequence of the prisoner being in some way related to Sheriff Wright
my marriage. Such an idea as this could not, in my judgment, have
originated in the mind of an reasonable or sensible person. He also
intimates that the prisoner has been favored, since being in jail, by not
being confined to a cell. If the author of the article in question ever
gets in the county jail (and in all probability he will), and finds
anything else there but cells in which to keep prisoners he will find more
than any prisoner has yet found, and more than Sheriff Wright, or any other
sheriff who has had charge of that boarding house, has ever found. I know
this to be true, viz: that Epperly is kept in jail, as other prisoners are
and have been kept, and he is locked up in a cell, as other prisoners are,
which ought to satisfy the people. The defendant has a right to demand an
examination before a justice of the Peace, that he may be admitted to bail
to answer the charge. If the offense is bailable. He does not ask it; the
people cannot force it. He can remain in jail without an examination until
a Grand Jury is ordered. The next Grand Jury will be summoned to convene at
the county seat of Sonoma county, at the Court House, in the city of Santa
Rosa, hence the expense so much talked of cannot be avoided, unless there
can be some way invented for the Grand Jury to meet at Guerneville instead
of at Santa Rosa. Mr. Oliver, in his communication, asks why, if Sheriff
Wright thought there was danger of violence he left the prisoner for as
much as half an hour without reasonable protection or guard, and walked
around the streets of Guerneville? I am informed by Sheriff Wright that he
did not leave the prisoner for any length of time whatever without such
protection or guard, and that he who asserts anything to the contrary
asserts that which is false.

JUSTICE

The Sonoma Democrat 19 August 1876

A CARD

EDS. DEMOCRAT:-One more word through your columns in regard to the

"Epperly case," and in answer to Justice, whoever he is.

In my previous card I asserted facts, over my own signature, not one of
which I retract. As to the particular one taken exception to, I have only
to say at least fifty persons will bear testimony to what I said. The law
is plain for those who wish to inform themselves, and such articles as
those given by Justice, even though they be intended to blind those who
know nothing of the matter, will have no effect, for in my opinion Justice
is Sheriff Wright or else he is someone who knows nothing of what he
affirms.

JAS. F. OLIVER

Guerneville, Aug. 12, 1876

c:\docs\calif\finsam

aaa-0588