Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1870-10-11
State VS. Lswis o. Shrader, for the
murder of John Williams at Fairplay.


Court excited much interest and at
tention, and resulted, as before noted
in the acquittal of the accused. For
prudential reasons we did not refer
to the circumstances of the murder
at the time it occurred. We give
below the charge of his honor, Judge
Mills, in this case TO the Jury. The
charge reviews about all the testi-
mony touching the guilt or innocence
of the accused, and will be read with
interest:
, STATE OF wIscOSsISl
Lswis o. ShrGder
The prosecution lntr oduced in evidence in
this case Dr. Sampson, who testified that some
| time about 8 O'Clock on the lst OF Sent. 1870
IN the village of Fairplay in this county. he
was returning toward Mr.. Guler's store from
visiting patient, Mr. Henderson. Just as he
reached the store he heard some one talking
4 loud across the street.. and thought he was
| trying TO get in the defendants house il was
| the voice of Williams, and he heard some one
demonstrating The doctor went into the
| store where the defendant was and asked him
II any one was with his wife, the defendant
| replying IN the negative; the doctor told him
| That that fellow was at his house trying to get
IN and his wife might be frightened. Shrader
immediately went toward his house, and soon
the witness heard him eXclaim, "You d--d
| s--oi-a-b--, what are you insulting my
wife Tor Z" The witness heard a scufIle, and
| immediately the defendant called on the doc
tor to come over 10 his house the doctor
went there and found the man lying down,
except his head and shoulders, on the portico
oil defendants house near the window.
A mortal wound was inflicted by a sharp
instrument penetrating the BRAIN of Williams
on his left temple; and like wound below
his shoulder five inches below his spine.
IL appears from the doctors testimony that
tue deceased was man greatly the superior
oil the defendant in physical strength, and
that ne was comparative stranger in the vii
lage, somewhat addicted TO mtoXication. He
had bought of Mr.. euler pocket knife,
which was found shut up in his pocket after
ms death. Other witnesses were introduced
| by The State but their testimony is substantial
~ given In that of Dr. Sampson. Williams
went IN and out of Guler's several times, ask
ed Tor whiskey, and euler let him have glass
OF beer, and told him he had liquor enough.
On the part of the defense, Mr.. Joseph
Calvert testilies that Williams rode in with
him from some place in the vicinity, into the
village on the LIST Of September. Williams
said he would kill man that night, wanted
to know Calver's name so that he could be a
witness; being reproved by Calvert for his
threat, he said he had killed one man before,
and he would kill a man that night. Mr.
Calvert told what he had heard that evening
in his fathers bar room but did not tell It to
to the defendant.
Mathew Collision testfies that he met Will
, lams about O'Clock in the village going
{ towards Guler's. Williams said he would
kill that id dutchman mentioned Shrader's
name, and pointed towards his house asked
the witness if he did not see that knife, and
II he would not give him fair trial if on the
jury. The witness told no one about it but
I his wife that evening, and he thought moth
ing of the conversation till next morning when
he saw Williams dead.
The testimony of the defendant and his
wife add but little to the previous testimony.
The wife says that Williams came to the win
Fdow while she was at home alone, put his
hand on the window, and she screamed aloud.
She ordered him away, he came back, saying,
"Madam, you are not hurt yet" enquired
where Mr.. Burns lived. Her husband came
up and asked him wh at he was doing there
Williams then turned toward her husband
Did not see her husband strike Williams he
came into the house and grabbed chair, and
when she saw blood running, her husband
: said h. give Williams lick. The defend
ants vest and coat lining were somewhat torn,
! and buttons found near the window.
The defendant testifes that when he saw
Williams on the steps and heard the cutlery,
he thought that his wife was in imminent
danger, he did not leave as he might, but
: turned and stuck the defendant, who also
struck the deceased, but such was his excite
ment, he don't remember anything about the
, knife.
The defendant at the present term of thi.
, court was indicted for the murder of Johr
Williams, and the foregoing is the substance
OF the testimony for and against the pr soner
IL yon shall find the defendant guilty, thelevi.
dence will not justify a verdict for murder
You will determine whether the defendant
has been guilty of mansaughter in any of it,
degrees.
J Any person may take TIE life Of another
in order to prevent the preparation of {
/ telonious crime upon his wife, or upon hi.
family or dwelling house, provided that thu
danger is so imminent that there is no othe!
reasonable mode of preventing the perpetra,
= ton of such crime, that must have occurred
to the mind of the party against whom tn,
danger is threatened.
1t may appear TO the jury at this time, with
the light they now have, that the deceased
was insane or suffering under the effect of in
toxicating drinks, and that neither the de.
iendant nor his wife were in great or immi-
nent danger from Williams. But you mus
regard the conduct of Williams as the defend
ant had right 10 regard ii from what he saw
Williams do, where he was sanding-the
cutlery of his wife and Williams assault on
; the defendant, if such was made, and the de-
PENDANTS apprehension of Williams design
as he might reasonably conjecture it from his
present acts, and what the defendant had seen
of him before.
If from all these indications of purpose,
you come TO the conclusion that the defend
ant was justfabe IN experimenting great bod
lily harm TO himself, or violence 10 the person
j of his wife, or a forcible breaking into his
dwelling house by The deceased, and tina:
striking the blow he did in1ict was necessary
to prevent Williams from executing his pur-
pose as defendant might justly conclude, you
will find the defendant not guilty; otherwise
you will find him guilty of manslaughter in
the 4th degree. OF course TO find the de-
PENDANT guilty, you must be satisfied of his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt