The Dickinson press., 1884-07-26

az. 1e ~ - orugg1st twenty-five years old, and
window; looked through; could see on the
1oor donble-barreleds shot-g gun moving about,
Johnny Bell first spoke; called to Ward,
,ysi9 sGi9men9;dys ,; il Minside" Ward said, "A right,
there was gun moving about and they might
get shot Fred stepped out in the door with
his hands on his hips
CHARLES Wards SHOOTING.
Charles rushed up and fired five shots be-
MeQueeny say ssBoys I am shot Lair and
witness went to the east; did not see the fracas
between Fred and Bell; saw Fred after he was
down; Lair and witness was over 100 feet east
stirred afterward; at that time Lair had no gun:
he didn't fire then; Richard Turpin did not
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
were three or four little parties; did not SEQ
any weapons in the hands of any Of our parties
from the time of going there to coming back;
remember the incident of some other men
throw up his hands; he threw them M and
Col. Uline said:
DON'T SHOOT THAT MANI"
dld not know any man was going to sho OF
hnnso;a nm was Ms thirty or forty feet from him.
self We're about h the there oRs wsre ana ctheys
they were of the same party. There were no
weapons there that saw. Saw shotgun in
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 testimony. 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: sHello."
He soon opened the door and asked: seWhat
do you want?,'
Bell told him he came prepared to move the
shack. When Ward came out with his hands
on his hips and said: "You s-n of b, I'll
down you tirst!" Bell and he then scufed, and
Charley Ward camo in the door and shot five
| times. He hit me in my arm
Witness took Off his coat and showed the
| mark of the wound on his right arm, showing
also the position in which he was standing when
struck
I did not speak at once till I felt the pain,
when told the boys was shot went about
sixty yards from the shack to Uline. He gave
me handkerchief to bandage up my arm To
the time of this shooting not one evil word was
said by u.s.
The peaceable reputation of the defendant
was admitted Rebuttal testimony before the
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 tho court The jury
men admonished very strictly in the duty to re-
ceive neither spoken nor written commune
cation and to promptly report any attempt to
communicate with them.
The greatest legal efforts ever witnessed in
North Dakota are thuse 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-
with the intent of removing trespassers will
appear in the second request as follows:
Charles Ward fired his pistol into the
crowd with intont to wound OF kill any Of it's
of said crowd, without previously communi-
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 the
offense, 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 sufficient to pre-
vent such ofense; and if by means of such re-
sistance Charles Ward was killed, it was done
in self defense and was justifiable.
On the point of threats they ask the follow
ing, in order to determine who mado 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 tho
killing, they ask the following:
If it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the defendant fired the fatal shot, and it
ls reasonable hypothesis raised by the testi-
r1ony 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
out aud was flying, for his life was immaterial.
He denied in toto the position taken by the coun-
honor would not be induced to participate in
the attempt to give the jury an excuse to shield
the most dastardly and unprovoked murder on
a principal of self-defense which could not be
| invoked by this armed band of twelve against
two persons Gov Davis briefly replied, say
ing that the learned counsel in effect asked the
court to do what it had no power
to do under the constitution-take away
the question of fact from the juryj
whether the facts and circumstances in this
picabillty of the right of self defense, and to
instruct them substantially that they must find
the defendant guilty of murder. The argu-
nent to the jury was opened for the prosecu-
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 q most subtle and care
full two hours speech, in the course of which
he alternately held Dick Turpin up as a model
Of courage and of cowardice, and as teller of
as it best suited the exclamation of that
nights transactions. The defendant broke
down, while some of the jurors, especially
few susceptible ones were moved to tears.
The efforts of Van Arman and Davis were
the theme of general admiration, the formers
for Its familiarity with every legal principle,
and the latter's for the ingenuity with which it
clothed the weakest points of the defense and
% made them appear towers of strength. Balls
had great weight with the jury.
In repelling the argument on the assumption
that the settlement Of the Northwest had been
attained by many bloody affrays, he said that in
a practice of sixteen years he had not heard Of
but one case beside this in which homicide
was committed in land dispute in the North
west
Judge Hudson charged the jury at great
length, defining homicide and its different de-
grees. He affirmed some of the points of the
defense, but on the land controversy and self
defense principle involved, wholly overruled
them. His instruction was as follows:
The controversy between Mr.. Bell and the
Ward boys over this claim is not involved in
this trial. You have nothing to do with that
You could not adjust it if you should attempt
it Whatever the merits Of that controversy
how