The Idaho world. [volume] (Idaho City, Idaho Territory) 1864-1918, 1869-12-30
TIE BURWESTER TRIAL.

mony We propose to discharge that duty which we
conceive as a, public journalist. the people have
right to expect of u.s. and shall do so with no feelings
of animosity or partizan bitterness, but in candid
and truthful manner and leave it to the people to
iudge Of the correctness of our conclusions.
The case was ably conducted on both sides. The
prosecution was managed by Maj. r. f. Foote, Dis
trict Attorney assisted by Hon. L. d. Hobrook, and
the defendant was fortunate enough to secure able
counsel in the persons of Judge J. b. Rosborough'
Hon. Frank Ganahl, Judge John r. Mcbride +. L.
Edmondson Esq, and Maj. E. H. MCDANIEL
The examination of the prosecuting witnesses was
conducted by Maj. Foote and the cross-examination
of defendants witnesses by Mr.. HolDrook' MI
Ganahl and Judge Rosbrough examined and cross
examined the witnesses alternately being occasional
" relieved by Judge Mcbride and Mr.. Edmondson
who also participated i'll the discussion OF points Oh
law as they during the trial The counsel Tor
the defense managed the case with great tact and
ability the best evidence Of which is the result OF
the trial.
After the jury was impanneled and sworn and
statement Of the case made to them by the District
Attorney the prosecution commenced the examina
ton of their witnesses, and everything went along
smoothly for time, until question was asked as to
the previous conduct of defendant towards Mrs Nor
ford which was of course objected to by defendants
counsel The Court overruled the objection. and
from tina, time forward opened the flood gates and
admitted all the scandal and gossip which had been
going the rounds of Boise City for months past mat
ters that had nothing more TO do with the fact OF tile
killing than the proceedings had at the opening OF
the Suez Canal would have had and which course
was in violation of all the rules OF evidence Whether
Judge Noggls erred through ignorance or design We
are unable 10 say, but satisfied that a prur!eht
curiosity and desire 10 hear all OF what he thought
would prove a rehash OF the dirty details Of scandal
and gossip in which he had participated 10 some eA-
tent himself had great deal 20 do with his ruling
on the admission OF such testimony We can recall
several instances wherein he displayed his N!hdic
tiveness towards the defendant and desire 10 convict
him in such palpable manner as % cause remark
even among the byssAnders. HIS Partially WAS APP
parent 10 all-trcquenuy interfering. when qnes
ton was askel OF witness by Defendants counsel
by remarking. {" II the question Is objected - shall
rule il out Thus giving tho 10 the counsel Tor
the prosecution who. knowing that Tie question VAS
proper had not objected. but lnding thA, all ohjec
ton was desired by his honor and that he would sus
II,
terposci.
The prosecution examined Wood l. Fl!ppcn, Esd
about conversation tina, took place IN Mr.. Pr!ckc;s
ONCE between himself. Burincster aud Mr.. friok"'i
but when the defense called Mr.. Frckctt and asA"d
him about the same conversation. Judge Nosglc
wonld not permit Mr. Prickct 20 answer Tho question
o. give his version OF the conversation al all Any
one who IS the eas, acquainted with the rules q: c'.
dencc or has ever rrad GrcculeAi or any WORK on
evidence knows that the defense c::ued IL TIL.
testimony from Mr.. Prickcti as matter Of E:s-'
and the ruling was So rtdlculousiy aud ma"s'cai4y
wrong that do not propose 10 d'"cu"s IT further
than to say that If AR. pr!okc:ts evidence Ma not
admissible for any other pnrposc. Il Mas admissible
II only for the purpose Of robui;ing or mpcach.ng
Mr. Flippea's testimony. Tho INSTANCES ID similar
rulings III this case too numerous O. embrace IA
one article in this issue. The unIssu.scd prejudice
entertained by the Judge towards the defendant. "a
evidenced not only by his rulings while on the Bench
but by his own declarations made both IN boise CITY
and Idaho City. patent TO everybody. and what
ever may be said Of the verdict which rendered
in the case the public res; assured Of thing
and that u.s. It il fault Of the Judge that Burmescr
was not convicted.
We know that the verdict has been severely critt-
cized By some people and has undoubtedly causcd
quite q cornmotion in Boise City. but say ihis
much We have been presen: at the trial Of every
murder case that has been tried in Boise county and
never have better jury impannclcd in any
case. They selected from different portions Of
the county-business men and miners. Ne are per
sonay acquainted with about two-thirds Of the gen
tlemen who the jury and know them 10 be
upright and honorable men, aud ~ good men as live
in this any other community. men who entered
the jury box fully conscious Of the weighty respon
sbilites resting upon them. and determined to do
their duty under their oaths and upon their con.
sciences. regardless alike of popular prejudice
feeling or outside pressure Of any kind, coming from
what source 1t might. Their verdict has proven
them to be SUCH for II is notorious that tho popular
feeling was adverse to the prisoner. The District
Attorney and his associate left stone unturncd,
and the diligence with which they worked up the
case was amply demonstrated in the number of wit
nesses who we're In attendance but the evidence
insufficient, while the testimony the part Of the
defense clearly and conclusivcly vndcatcd the de-
PENDANT and justified the act he had committed, for
which he was on trial for his life. Those persons
who are Ioudest In their denunciatons of the jury
are Just such class of men 10 be found in every
community, who had already pre-iudged the case on
what they had heard the streets. and no evidence
whatever cxcupating tho defendant whould have suf
feed to remove their prejudices and caused them to
change their opinion AZ to the guilt of the defendant
Others. calmer and cooler, who had no feeling either