Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1884-10-30

District Attorney II. C. Orr.

EDlIOh uEfSALD.-MJ dttcutioH mas
! been called to an article which APP.
peared in Ed. Pollock's paper of the
10th inst. rejecting upon my conduct
!, as an officer.
! 1t was my desire and intention to
take no notice of the article, fully be.
heving that those who are acquainted
, with the character of the writer, oil
the Attorney who furnished the data fol-
! the scurrilous libel, and with the mo-
tive which prompted the attack, would
fully understand the purpose for which
it was written; and that consequently
it would be impotent for harm But at
the request of friends, of members of
the grand and petit juries who sat upon
several of the cases enumerated, and
of other persons who were acquainted
with the facts and who participated in
the trials, and from the further fact that
the whole county has been flooded with
the paper containing the article as a
Democratic campaign document, have
consented to make as brief statement
as possible of the facts in the cases in
which charges are made.
The first case alluded to is that of
DAVID BRANDON. The facts are as
follows: The jury found Brandon guilty,
and recommended that he be fined 5000
and be committed to jail in default
thereof. earnestly urged Judge Goth
rem to imprison him at once, but he
refused, and said he would send him
home, and ordered the following iudg-
ment entered: Defendant fined 5000,
and in default to stand committed to
Jail until paid or otherwise discharged
District Attorney to use discretion.
Defendants TO go al large during good
behavior" No word against Brandon
has ever been heard since.
STATE VS.. SIsLEY and others: The
first | had to do with this case was after
the defendants were arrested, and emi-
nent counsel had been employed by
relatives of the deceased. / did every
thing | could to have fair and
thorough examination. This l thought
due both to the State and the accused.
The grand jury at the next term of the
Circnit Court, indicted him for murder.
| exertcd my utmost efforts to procure
evidence sufficient to justify me in put
ting the State to the expense of a trial
This | have been unable to do, and
hence the failure to prosecute.
The STATE VS.. SIsLEY, I'd suit: This
suit was brought on complaint of Chas
Weller against Lewis Sisley, for an as
sault made by defendent upon Weller,
by firing revolver at him. The de-
PENDANT was held for trial in default of
$500 bail for his appearance at Circuit
Court. s Before the first term of Court,
the principal witness, Weller, died,
without whose testimony there was not
sufficient evidence to convict Sisley.
and he was discharged upon his own
recognizance.
STATE VS.. JACOBS: Jacobs was con-
victed of an assault and battery upon
G. X. Dean, and fined Sl.0o and costs.
The case was appealed to the Circuit
Court. At the first term the defendant
was unable to be present; and the
second term he was obliged to be with
his mother who was sick, and the Court
dismissed the appeal and ordered the
fine and costs to be paid Mr.. Wilson
agreed to pay the fine and costs for the
defendant, and gave his check for the
same, and the county never lost a cent
in the case.
THE STATE VS.. DEwEY:-Dewey was
indicted by the grand jury. He was
absent from the State, Che never was in
custody. notified the Chairman of
the County Board. and the Town Board,
of his own town of his whereabouts,
and asked them what they desired to be
done. They informed me that they did
not desire him sent after, and resolu-
ton was introduced before the County
Board TO the effect that he be permitted
to return to his home. But after some
discussion it was thought best to let it
remain as it was, and let the case be
continued.
STATE VS.. JUDGE AND BATTLE:-Im-
mediately on hearing of the tragedy, /
went in company with Ora Richards to
look the matter up, and to procure the
guns, ETC., / endeavored to have the
parties arrested, but was advised by the
Chairman of the County Board to wait
and see wha. the result would be- With
others, attended on the wounded man,
and was with him when he died. | i'm
mediately went to prominent men. and
officials, and requested them to sign
complaint, which they declined to do.
for personal reasons. | finally got
colored man, Mr.. Sheppard, to sign a
complaint for the arrest of the defend
ants. The result was, they were all
convicted.
STATE VS.. CLARK Bros In this case
! accepted a plea of guilty TO exactly
the offense that any jury would have
found them guilty of, as every lawyer
in Lancaster whose opinion is worth
anything will say. The court when
sentencing them, so stated, and further
stated that it had advised me to accept
that plea, as in its opinion, the jury would
have found no greater verdict. Had
refused. change of venue would have
been taken. Tin fact an affidavit for such
a change had been already made out)
and the county would have been put by
such change, to a great expense, to no
purpose.
| STATE VS.. MCNELLY:-All of the good
citizens of Muscoda decreed that the
defendant should be arrested and dealt
with according to law. took pains to
ascertain this, and went to Muscoda,
before asking the Governor for requisi-
ton for McNelly, to ascertain whether
there was sufficient evidence to warrant
me in having him arrested. On the
| trial the evidence showed concusively
that if any offense had been committed
| IL was the one charped in tho informa