Idaho semi-weekly world. (Idaho City, Boise County, Idaho Territory) 1867-1868, 1867-07-24
Trial of Edward stock for Murder.

put upon his trial, for the murder of Michael
Claughesy, in this city. on the morning of May
25th. Judge May District Attorney, appeared
as public prosecutor; Judge Rosberough and
Col. Sam. A. Merritt were counsel for the de-
PENDANT. Much trouble was experienced in
getting jury, because of bias in the case, and
venire, which extended to distant points in
the Basin, was finally issued in order that the
Jury could be empannelled. Several who had
passed Court examination were peremptoriiy
challenged off the jury by the prosecution and
defence. At length, on Friday morning, the
panel was completed, and the following named
Jurors were sworn in to try the case George
Bake, Benz. T. Davis, j. C. johnson, j. Dams
kin, II. Meredith, - Peterson, A. Charson, S.
B. Morrison, Joseph Burkett, j. G. Rehr, A.
P. Turner, Chas. Bruce.
The main witnesses for the prosecution were
Messrs John Wilson, Michael Campbell, j. p
Way, R. French C. Mclaughlin, p Harring-
ton, b. T. Lodge, Hugh Fl. Kelly, J. E. Miller
and Thos Conway, who all swore to facts, cir
ing, and DR.. Jas. Healy, who testified as to the
nature and fatal effect of the wounds inflicted
on the deceased. The testimony of the wit
nesses mainly relied on for the prosecution
was very direct against the accused, and closed
on Saturday morning. The defence called
several witnesses, by whom it was expected to
be proven that one of the main witnesses on
the prosecution had made other statements
than he did upon oath, to the effect that the de-
ceased had, on the morning of the killing, rob-
bed the prisoner of a purse OF about $500 iii
dust, and silver watch, and that that was the
origin of the difficulty which resulted in the
fatal encounter. The Prosecuting Attorney
objected to the. admission of this character of
testimony on points of law, and the Court sus-
tanned the objection. The prisoner was then
called to the stand, and examined as a witness
in his own behalf His statement was that the
deceased and himself had been together, drink
ing and going about town, all the preceding
afternoon and night to the fatal affair; that at
a drinking house during the evening the de-
ceased had attempted to take his purse from
the counter; that after leaving French'S house
at about midnight the deceased got him to-
drink twice from bottle of port wine which
the prisoner had brought and left at French'S
that the deceased took him to the unoccupied
cabin where the killing afterwards occurred
that in the morning he woke from his half
drunken slumber and found his purse and
watch gone he went to Frenchs to inquire if
he (French) had seen his {St0cks) watch the
night before aud learned from French that he
had his watch when he left that house at mid
night with Claughesy; he returned to the cab
in, accused Claughesy with having robbed him
the deceased derided him; harsh words ensu-
ed, and Claughesy advanced towards him in a
manners as ClaugheSy was so supe-
rior to him in size and strength, in fear of great
bodily injury, he, Stock, drew his pistol and
fired Claughesy advanced, clenched the pis-
toll, sIung Stock around and as he did so Stock
fired again; then he tried with both hands, to |
wrench the pistol from Stock, and as he did this,
the latter drew his knife with his left hand and
inflicted the wound in Claughesy's back
This statement of the prisoners was corrob-
Grated III some portions by the witnesses for
the prosecution, but the testimony of DR.. !
Healy, as to the wounds, rendered that portion |
Of the prisoners statement quite impossible.
1t was shown, by Way, that Claughesy did go
down into Idaho City about one o'clock the
of the killing, and that Stock was
then lying, he believed, asleep, in the cabin
The theory of the defence was that Claughesy
robbed stock in his sleep, took the purse and /
watch down town. left it in the keeping of
and returned to the cabin to avoid
suspicion Of the robbery The case of the
however, was very strong and /
that of the defence, for sheer lack
Of any evidence of positive or cumulative
nature, save the prisoners own statement, was
very frail After brief summing up of the /
main points relied On for conviction. Judge
May gave way for Judge RosbOr0ugh, who ad-
dressed himself particularly to the theory of
the defence, and the failure, as be viewed Them
Of some of the strong points of the prosecu-
ton. He made very able and ingenious ad-
dress to the jury Col Merritt closed for the
defence III an argument of great power, and
which visibly impressed every listener Judge
May then addressed the jury, and made a very
strenuous, forcible, closing effort to show the
full guilt of the prisoner at the bar. After
a lucid and impartial charge by Chief Justice
Mcbride the case was submitted to the jury,
about four O'Clock Saturday afternoon.
All that night, all Of Sunday, and until Mon
day morning. about Ii o'clock, did the jury re-
main out without coming to agreement upon
verdict At that hour they presented them
selves before the Court, The prisoner was
brought in To the question by Mr.. Smith,
Clerk of the Court, whether they had agreed
upon a verdict. through their foreman, A. p.
Turner, the jury responded they had not;
could not agree The Judge inquired if their
failure to agree was because of any misunder-