Daily Kennebec journal., 1877-10-31

preside with his usual dignity and impartalitv.
On the coming in of the court in the morning. the
crowd was somewhat smaller than the day preyi-
Gus, though it was largely augmented before
noon. There were several ladies in the audience
and quite a number of interested persons from
Waterville.
The government continued its testimony.
James F. Hill resumed his testimony, being
cross-examined There are different sizes Of
buckshot. The bullet that is mutilated is not the
kind of bullet used generally in the gun.
Charles ii. Redington of Watervie, testified.
Saw Mr.. Gilman when he carried to the lock-
up. Mr.. Gilman asked me who was hit or who
aie injured. l said, "Mr. McNslly and John
Flood" lie said. 81 meant him." or 81 meant
to hit him." don't think be said "By gracious
meant him" This was soon after the shooting
Since that time have heard him say, in regard
TO the affair, that they were stealing his land, and
he had as much right to shoot man stealing his
land, as a man breaking into his house; and quo
ted Dr. Cuyler to sustain him in that view. Mr.
Gilman said it would be hard thing for him to
be punished for doing that. lie said John Flood
knew there would be trouble. In Augusta, Tues
day morning following the shooting, in the depot,
Flood was hit. lie said he didn't regret it at ALL
for he had no business being there.
Cross-erdmined-Wa in the lookup when Gil
man was searched. Mr.. Dow said, II want to
search you" He made no special resistance |
thought he was asked Carleton said 81 guess he
hasn't anything" but search was made and re-
volver was found. While in the cell Gilman ex-
pressed the wish to be tried. lie saw no force
used by Mr.. Dow. Mr.. Dow handcuffed him. Mr..
Gilman said, This is done out of spite" Dow
said "you have acted pretty badly to-day, and you
had better he taken care Of"
Walter Getchell of Watervle, testified that
he had seer the crowd of men and heard the guns,
but heard nothing from Mr.. Gilman himself
Franklin S. Chase of Waterville was at the
lookup when Gilman was brought there. Gilman
inquired of Mr.. Redngton. if any one got hurt,
who was not at work. Redington named who did
get hurt, among them Flood. Gilman says
Flood gracious he Is the man meant" Had
had no difficulty with Mr.. Gilman; not on speak
ing terms with him.
NJ p. Hatch of Clinton testified as to what Gilman
said at the Cony House. Tuesday, on the sitting
OF the court. He with several other persons were
speaking about the shooting He was stating how
he loaded his gun. He put in first q partridge
charge that did not have an effect, and so he put
10 something heavier. lie made some remark
that the men came from Clinton, and that they
had some sand.
Cross eJdRtiaed.-IIe thought he meant heavier
shot, that would be most etf-ctual
Charles &. Carleton was recalled. and testified
to having been handed bullet, fsttened out ap-
parantly against wall
DIR. Daniel X. Boutele of Waterville testified
to dressing the wounds of John Flood, which be
described. Wound was in the leg, 3 or 4 inches
below the knee joint. 1t was q circular wound.
He probed the wound some five or six inches in
Had to suspend operations for q while, on ac-
count of the faintness of the patient He has
since had constant pain. leg swollen and painful,
and discharging freely swollen mainly in the
upper portions inflammation around the wound:
ankle somewhat swollen and painful; can't SIT up,
not safe for him to be here; wound was evidently
made by small ball might possibly some of the
clothing gone in with the ball. 1t is difficult 10
tell now whether the bone injured. 1t is
now impossible to tell whether he will have 4
m he favc
stances 1t must be several weeks before his re-
covery. His condition is now favorable for re-
covery. If the ball is in it must be in the fesby
part of the leg or near the ankle. The wound
possibly might produce death.
DR.. +. c. Thsyer Of Waterville, testified that
Jehn Flood was taken into his Office and he found
circular wound in the 1eshy part of the leg. He
probed the wound some six inches; the probe
followed the track, passing along very easily; did
not discover any foreign substance: saw Mr..
Flood yesterday mornings; he has some fever,
coated tongue, etc; limb swollen, and foot. in
fact the whole leg below the knee; wound dis
charging freely of puss; most OF pain in ankle or
just below; believed the ball to be somewhere in
the vicinity of the ankle joint. The wound
might produce death.
Cross -egdmintd.- The orifce was at least .
quarter of an inch in size; a bucksbot might
make it. A slight wound might produce death.
Believed it was flesh wound. If the ball had
been extracted. serious results might not be ex-
pected From an ordinary flesh wound there
might not be very serious consequences.
The government here rested its testimony.
Reuben Foster, Esq, opened for the defence.
He said the jury thus far had seen the dark side
of the picture; the facts to be presented in the
case would materially change the aspect. Rumors
or newspaper stories were not to be considered in
this case-do not at all enter into it. Gilman 10
charged with assault to murder and kill;
second, with intent to kill and slsy; and third,
with an aggravated assault. II found guilty
the first count. the penalty will be from one to
twenty years in the State Prison. He claimed at
the outset that there intent to murder,
kill or say shall we attempt to justify any
such action. The assault was made with no such
intent. II is for the jury to say whether this was
aggravated assault. He quoted from law de-
cisions showing force necessary to be used TO
suppress trespsss. The exigency of the present
case called for the use Of certain means which
would be entirely unjustfabIe under ordinary
circum stances. The defendant tried to bring
about the result by milder means; it is for the
partridge shots first" by giving fair and proper
notice. The issue really is whether this is .
felonious assault with intent to kill.
Mrs. Gilman was married to Nathaniel Gilman
in 1886, being his second wife. ln 1888, they
came TO Watervile to reside. Timothy Boutelle
and Gilman were neighbors, their lots adjoining,
with the line now in dispute fully established.
Mr.. Gilman showed his wife the boundaries Of
this particular lot. From 1888 to the present
time, Mrs. Gilman had made this her summer
residence; she looked out upon the beautiful
grounds and saw her children engaged in the
sports of ch idhood. In 1859 her husband died.
In his declining years he had leaned upon the
arm of the oldest son, Cha rles. and now he took
his place by his mothers side. acting as her agent
in business affairs. This place he has since filled.
He is of gentle nature, most scrupulous, re-
g ious man, has not vice, is q man OF principle
and character. To be sure he is nervous, drs-
matte, and perhaps peculisr; but be has as
many of the elements Of grand character As one
in a thousand. Until 1870, this fence remained
as it WAS, when Mr.. Noycs, with his itching palm,
removed it some four feet on Gilmans lot.
Rather than have lawsuit. Mrs. Gilman bore
the insult. She finally decided to remove the
fence TO its original line, and it was placed back
there on Thursday last many of the old post.
holes and part of the decayng posts being found
on the orig inal line. Mr.. Noyes was absent ct
the time but when he returned, learning of his
intention to remove the fence again, word was
sent to him that he would move it at his peril.
Mr.. Noyes knew that it was her land and
that she would take means to protect her
property. Charles sent for his ammunition
and his gun. He had not the power or in
fuence of Mr.. Noyes. He was left comparatively
alone, and his purpose to frighten the trespas-
sers away f; it would do no good to lay gentle
hand on that fighting crew; Charles believed that
he took the only course possible under the circum-
stances. He first fired light shots to scare them