Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1883-07-05
State of Missouri VS.. c. A. Downs

StalS OF AlSSOUTa VS.. ~. "A. bCWuS.
The trial Of this cause ceIehre was set for
June 18th, 1888, and was tried before John
d. Foster, Judge of the 10Th Judicial Circuit.
On that day panel of forty qualified jurors
was completed, and Il list of names furnished
defendants counsel. On the 18th the hear
ing was commenced, and of which below
will be found Il summary.
Messrs Whitworth, Easton, and others,
substantially agree that Prough, anon" 9TH
ers, was in the saloon kept by Downs in
Ironton, Mo-, on the night of Dec. 10th, 1882;
that he, Easton, and another man went i'm
together; that Downs was behind the coun-
ter; that Prough was treating, and asked
third party to drink, who declined and walk
ed to the other side of a card table, at which
more were sitting; Prough started around
toward him, saying he would kick him.
Downs boy was at the table, and spoke UP
and asked who was to be kicked; whereupon
PrOugh made remark to him which, among
the vulgar, has an obscene Significance,
when the boy called Prough a----
and struck him. Prough, who was a large
man, threw up his hands, some say, while
others say he pushed or knocked the boy
back against the table. At this time Downs
rushed around the counter and struck
Prouch above and behind the right ear with
a glass decanter, in which was some brandy,
and from which blow Prough died on the
following day.
The boy testified that he did not call
Prough any name, nor did he strike him;
but that when PrOugh was asked whom he
would kick, he made the remark above al
luded to and struck, knocking the boy back
on the card table, and was preparing to
strike again when Downs interfered and
struck the fatal blow.
Downs testified that when he first saw the
row going on, Prough had knocked his son
back on table, and was preparing to follow
up. when he (Downs), who was at the time
putting stopper in the decanter, rushed
around with it still in his hand and struck
the fatal blow; that he had no intent to kill,
but only intended to protect his boy; and at
once going behind the bar, handed out some
whisky with which to battle Prough's head.
Defendants counsel offered to prove that
there were shotgun and revolver behind
the bar, as circumstance showing absence
of intent, and also the dangerous character
of Prough, neither of which would the court
allow.
Downs character as 4 pcaccable man was
shown by JAS. d. Fox, of Frcdcricktown,
and J. f. 7. Edwards, of Ironton, and
others.
1t was also brought out that the States
witness, Easton, either offered or was Will
ing TO get out of the way for money, and
take another witness, the man whom Prou"i,
was going to kick, also. Easton testified
that money was offered him, but the amount
WAS not large enough.
On Friday, the 10Th, the evidence being all
in, the argument OF counsel commenced on
the part of the State, Hon. j. w. Emerson
being the speaker, followed by Judge l.. F.
Dinning, Hon. Jasper n. Burks, Judge VIM.
Garter and Hon. Samuel ByrncS, for the de-
fcndant, and closed by w. Il. Edgar, Esq.
The jury retired at 10 O'Clock p. NJ, and in
an hour returned u verdict of guilty Of MUIR
der in the second degree.
On June 80, motion for new trial was filed,
and among reasons named were the follow
ing, to wit: The Court refused to give in
>tructions for mansaughter; refused to adj
init competent evidence for defendant and
admitted Incompetent evidence on part of
State, and that one of the jurors had formed
and expressed opinion as to guilt or innO-
cence of accused, while he swore on his uOir
dire that he had not.
New trial was granted on the latter ground.
On granting the motion, Judge Foster stat
ed that as a man he was satisfied that the
juror (Razor by nancy was competent to
serve, and answered on uOir dire truly; still,
from the evidence before hime, he as Judge,
must grant new trial as per motion.
Court adjourned at nine O'Clock, July I'd,
to be again convened on July Goth, 1888, for
the trial of this cause; and sixty qualified
men were ordered to be summoned from
which to select jury to try the case.
The trial throughout was an intellectual
contest of the first order, as might have been
foretold from the learning and ability OF the
counsel on both sides.