Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1880-05-08
LIVINGSTON ON TRIAL.

second Hearing Of the Stumpage Case--
The Testimony Given Before the Court
and Jury.
FRIDAY AFTERNOON.
The court sustained the objection OF
the prosecution made before dinner to
the defendants offer and overruled the
offer.
Mr.. Hudson recalled for cross-examina-
ton: He said he did say on the former
trial he did not think he footed up the
orders to find the total amount of them
at that time.
Here the
PROSECUTION CLOSED THEIR CASE.
General Campbell was called by the
defense. The prosecuting attorney
promptly responded to the call and held
up his hand, but turning around, found
another General Campbell behind him
General Campbell, Of Scotland, being
the witness called. Our General Camp
bell thereupon took his seat and the
Scotland general was sworn. He said
he knew Weizi, Running Bear and White
Ghost since the year 1871.
The defense then offered to prove by
this witness that he knew the reputation
Va ohSpS AASAuAo Al Viz community
in which they reside for
truth and veracity, and that that reputa-
ton is bad. This offer was objected to
by the prosecution on the ground that
the witness was not from the neighbor-
hood where these Indians reside, and the
defense holding that this was matter
for cross-examination and not proper
preliminary question, and therefore the
court ought not to notice the objection.
The court ruled as follows: The ques-
ton raised Is whether it is essential that
the witnesses should come from the
iu''DV in Which the pe witness ms's''to'nGe to be
impeached reside? 1t is an important
question. Judge Wales in second Wen
dali, 355, states that the general charac-
ter is the estimation in which person is
held in the community where he resides
and accordingly the members Of that
community are the only proper witnesses
to testify to such character. Greenleaf,
in the first volume, 519, reiterates this
doctrine. In fourth Gushing, 107, the
presumption is that the witness came
from the same community. In lob Mass,
5G5, it is expressly stated that the wit
ness came from the same community. In
practice the rule has always been thus,t
the extent of my knowledge. A man or
woman's character is supposed to be good
until the contrary be shown in legal
way; for character, being one of the most
previous gifts, when it is assailed, can
only be done in the lawful mode, and it
should be by persons inhabiting the COM
munity, who can testify to the good or
bad reputation. do not pretend to say
that legal domicile, or strictly legal resi-
dence is required. therefore hold that
it is subject OF preliminary examination
to ascertain from the witness offered
where he himself resides or has resided;
whether he is from the neighborhood or
community of the witness to be impeach-
ed. II he has been sojourner in that
community for the proper length of time
to enable him to ascertain the general
reputation, his testimony may be allow.
The witness then said he was connect
ed with the Indian service from 1866 tc
May 1870 as special agent for this terri
tory. He knew the business that wa.
going on at Grow Creek agency and wa.
acquainted with these chiefs. He wa.
at Grow Creek during to the winters
of 1866 and 1867. From 1868 to 1870 III
lived about Is miles above Fort Randall
70 miles below Grow creek. During the
winter of 1870 he again lived at Grow
creek. Since that time he had lived Al
Scotland and had been engaged in farm
ing, hotel keeping and staging. He hai
been at Grow creek since that time, two
three or four times. He was there last il
1876 for four days. He,is now acquainted
with probably one-haf the people al
Grow Creek and along the Missouri rivel
in that vicinity. He had lived in Scot
land for the last three years, which place
is 12O miles from Grow creek agency.
The court then said: "The first ques
ton presented is whether this witness
having resided on the reservation will
his wife;in the winter of 1870 and II ant
since 1871 having resided 12O miles from
that reservation, is n competent witnes.
as to the character and reputation o
White Ghost. The court holds that til.
impeachment of the witness characte
for truth and varacity relates to the com
munity in which he has lived, and thai
such knowledge can only come from 1
person who has lived or resided i'll sucl
community. Since 1871 the witness nov
on the stand has lived remotely from tn,
community of White Ghost and in tina
space of time,has only made three or fou
casual visits, the last one being in lS7t
for day or so. Certainly he is not com
petent to testify of his own knowledg
since 1871. It would be most unsafe an,
dangerous to permit such evidence to e
to Jury, for what is now decided wit
regard to an Indian must be decide
with regard to white man or white VIC
man. The court therefore holds that fc
the reasons stated, this witness is incon
petenFto testify on this point"
10 which ruling of the court the dt
fendant excepts.
Mr.. MacNamara was next called an
sworn.
He said he had resided in Yankto
since the Sth day of June, 1873. He W;
' stationed at Cheyenne agency rs a so
dier from 1876 to 1878 which is hundre
and ten miles above Grow Creek agenc,
During this time he was at Grow cree
three times, and he had been there thre
times since he came to Yankton. h
had never lived at Grow creek or mac
. his home there. He was there in 49,
j; for one-halt day; in 1877 he was the,
three days, and in 1878 he was there tw
days. He was there fifteen days In
August, and another time in 1890 lie W,
. Mt the agency eight days. Apart fro
these times he had never lived or staid
the agency. Grow creek is one hundrt
and sixty-fve miles from Yankton.
The witness was then asked if he kne
[, the reputation of White Ghost in Il
/! community where he resides for tru
and veracity.
This was objected to by the prosec
ton and the same offer made by the d
fense rs with the previous witness. L
offer was also objected to and the obj,
tions were sustained and the questi
:. and offer ruled out by the court for t
. same reasons above given: