The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1884-07-25
get shet Fred stepped out in the door vix,
his hands on his hips


his hands on his hips Il
CHARLES WARDS SHOOTING.
Charles rushed up and fired five shots be.
fore anything was DONE Witness heard Pat
McQueeny say Boys am shot Lair and
between Fred and Bell; saw Fred after he was
down; Lair and witness was over 100 feet east
of the shack; saw Charlie fall; don't think he
stirred afterward; at that time Lair had no gun,
he didn't fire then; Richard Turpin did hoi
see there.
Witness showed on the map how he ran
down on the west side of the Bell shack,
coming round and falling near the east side Of
the shack.
He was at the inquest; did not see the pis-
tol of Fred Ward. On cross examination said
he did not see Lair have pistol nor gun; the
only gun saw was in the shack went with the
party from the Headquarters building; there
were three or four little parties; did not seA
any weapons in the hands of any Of our parties
remember the incident of some other men
coming out Of the shack; he was told to
throw up his hands; he threw them up, and
Col Uline said:
s'DoN'T SHOOT THAT MANI"
did not know any man was going to shoot
him. was thirty or forty feet from him
Ledfield, Maly, Mullarkey, Col Uline and my
self we're about him. Ii there were others
they were of the same party. There were no
W. II
front Of the shack after all was over, Ledfeld
wanted to take it along. Uline told him it was
not his and he should let it alone
Witness was confronted with the different
statements made in his affidavit before the cor
oner, and said he was not correctly reported
by Powell, who wrote the testimGsay. This
was the complaint of others who had made
statements.
Pat McQueeny, another defendant, said:
Am twenty three; was behind Bell at Wards
shack when Bell called
Bell said; "Hello, Ward"
Ward said: 'FHello."
He soon opened the door and asked: ssWhat
do You want?,'
Bell told him he came prepared to move the
shack. When Ward came out with his hands
down you first!' Bell and he then scuffled, and
Charley Ward came in the door ind shot Eve
times He hit me in my arm.
Witness took of his coat and showed the
mark Of the wound on his right arm, showing
also the position in which he was standing when
struck.
did not speak at once till felt the PAIN
when told the boys was shot went about
sixty yards from the shack to Uline. He gave
me y handkerchief to bsndage up my arm. To
the time of this shooting not one evil word was
said by US.
The peaceable reputation Of the defendant
was admitted Rebuttal testimony before tho
coroner was admitted under an exceptional
An offer to prove the declaration of Fred Ward
to United States Receiver Anderson shortly be-
fore his death Of his purpose Of going on Bells
claim, WAS ruled out by the court The jury
men admonished very strictly in the duty to re-
ceive neither spoken nor written communi-
cation and to promptly report any attempt to
communicate with them.
The greatest legal efforts ever witnessed in
North Dakota are those seen and heard in the
Ward cases. The prayers for charges EN-
braced the usual ones in regard to the law of
self defense, weight of testimony, credibility of
Witnesses and reasonable doubt The special
position predicated on the theory Of the de-
Tense, that they went to the Ward shack only
with tho intent Of removing trespassers will
appear in the second request as follows:
II Charles Ward fired his pistol into the
crowd with intent to wound or kill any Of its
members and before any act of violence by any
Of said crowd, without previously commune
eating to such crowd any request to depart
such firing was unlawful and felonious and
could be lawfully resisted by the party to be
injured to an extent sufficient to prevent ths
ofense, or by any other person in defense Of
the person to be injured to the same extent,
provided that the force of violence used in SO
resisting was not more than sufi cient to pre-
vent such offense; and il by means of such re-
sistance Charles Ward was killed, it was done
in self defense and was justifable.
On the point OF threats they ask the follow.
ing in order to determine who made the first
assault:
The Jury may consider the testimony of the
threats testified to have been made by Charles
Ward before the fatal collision, even if such
threats were not communicated to the defend
ant or heard by him.
In regard to non participation directly in the
killing, they ask the following:
II 1t ia not proved beyond a reasonable doub!
that the defendant fred the fatal shot and il
mony that the fatal shot was fired by some 9TH
er person than the defendant, then you must
acquit him.
In reply to this Wallin, for the dictrict At
torney, maintained that the principles Of self
defense were inapplicable to this case and the
defendant was not entitled to instructions up
on that law Mr.. Van Arman further replied,
reviewing the facts as proven, and admitted by
the defense themselves He held that what
took place before Charlie Ward gave up ran
He denied in toto the position taken by the conn
sci for the defense, and said he was sure his
honor would not be induced to participate in
the attempt to give the jury an excuse to shield
the most dastardly and unprovoEed murder on
a principal Of sef-d -defense which could not be
invoked by this armed band Of twelve against
two persons. Coy. Davis briefly replied, say-
ing that the learned counsel in effec. asked the
court to do what it had no power
to do under the constitution-take away
the question of fact from the Jury;
whether the facts and circumstances in this
case did not entitle them to inquire into the 40
plicabillty Of the right Of self defense, and to
instruct them substantially that they must find
the defendant guilty Of murder. The argu-
ton by Deputy District Attorney Pratt, the bar
being densly packed with ladies, almost to the
exclusion of lawyers. He Was responded to
BY Wellington in most subtle and care
full two hours speech, in the course of which
he alternately held Dick Turpin up as model
OF courage and Of cowardice, and as teller Of
truth and q blackened perjurer and assassin,
as it best suited the explanation of thai
nights transactions. The defendant broke
down, while some of the jurors, especially q
few susceptible ones were moved to tears
Judge Hudson charged the jury at greai
length, defining homicide and its different do,
grees. He affirmed some Of the points Of the
defense, but on the land controversy and self
defense principle involved, wholly overrulet
thsm His instruction was as follows:
The controversy between Mr.. Bell aud tht
Ward boys over this claim ia not involved il
this trial Yon have nothing to do with that
You could not adjust it il you should attemp
it Whatever the merits Of that controversy
| may have been cannot now affect the guilt Of
innocence OF this defendant and cannot in any
| event furnish justification or excuse for thii
homicide Such controversies should be set
tied In the proper form and not on this trial
He stated this proposition in relation to thu
principal Of self defense:
II you hnd from the evidence that after the
deceased, Charles Ward, had ceased firing
| from the door, he cried out that he gave up OF
surrendered, which was heard by those on the
outside, aud he was told to come out and did
come ont and run from the shack in an attempt
| 10 escape. and you and that when some. dis
lance from the shack he was shot and killed,
previously furmshed any justification for the
killing either by way OF self defense or other
wise-if this fact be true, the time for self-de-
fense to be necessary had passed