The Warner weekly sun. (Warner, Brown Co., Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1885, 1884-07-25

4. NAlG 5lldN b.
He was at the inquest: did not see lA,a
t0i Of Fred Ward. On cross-examinatinn
40 did moi see Lair nave a pistol nor MN 49,
only gun 1 saw was in the shack went with ~
party from the Headquarters building; tSare
were three or four little parties: did not Ia
any weapons in the hands of any of orr nariies
from the time of going there to coming hacS.
remember the incident Of some other nsass
coming out of the shack; he was tia ~
throw up his hands; he threw them up. and
Col Uline said; ~ eAa
DON'T SHOOT THAT MANia
/ did not know any man was going II shooI
him. / was thirty or forty feet from b;n,
Ledield, Maly, Mullarkey. Col Ullne and NV
self were about him. If there were ofhsss
they were OF the same party. There were, NJ
weapons there that | saw. Saw a shs.g,r5 ~ =
front Of the nhack after all was over. Led6eldd
wanted TO take it along. Uline told him n wss
not his and he should let it alone.
Witness was confronted with the different
statements made III his affidavit before the eor.
onerS 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. saia.
Am twenty three; was behind Bell at Wards
shack when Bell called.
Bell said; "HeIlo, Ward.n
Ward said: Hello"
He soon opened the door and asked: ssEs
do you wantY,' 90
Bell told hin he came prepared to move tha
shack. When Ward came out with his hands
on his hips and said: "You SIN Of a b.. TD
down ven frst!l ~ Bell and he then scuffied and
Charley Ward came in the door and shot FIVE
times. He hit me in my arm.
Witness took of his coat and showed tha
mark of the wound on his right arm, shem..~
| also the position in whichhe was standing when
struck.
I did not speak at once till I felt the main
when l told the boys ] was shot went about
SIXTY yards from the shack to Uline. He gave
me q handkerchief to bandage up my arm To
the time of this shooting not one evil word was
said by rs.
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 the court The Jury
men admonished very strictly in the duty to re-
ceiye neither spoken nor written mmu
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 cnes in regard to the law Of
self defense, weight of testimony, credibilitv 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 the intent of removing trespassers viii
appear in the second request as follows:
If Charles Ward fired his pistol into the.
crowd with intGnt 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 tn be
injured to an extent sufficient to prevent the
/ offanua 0s hv INV nthar narao IN 1afo,oa -
the person to be injured to the same extent,
provided that the force of violence used in 80
resisting was not more than sufficient to pre-
vent such offense; and If by means of such re-
s~istance Charles Ward was killed, II was done
in self-defenee and was justiiable.
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 Il 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:
III it is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant fired the fatal shot, and Il
is a reasonable hypothesis raised by the testi-
mony that the fatal shot was fred by some 9TH
err person than the defendant, then You must
acquit him.
In reply to this Waliin, for the dictrsct 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 Amman 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 and was flying, for his life was immaterial.
He denied IN toto the position taken Dy tne coun-
sci for the defense, and said he was sure hs
honor would not be induced to participate IN
the attempt to give the jury an excuse 70 shield
the most dastardiy aid unprovoked murder on
q principal of self-defense which could mol PC
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 IL had no power
to do under tie constitution-take away
the question of fact from the jury;
whether the facts and circumstances ID this
case did not entitle them TO inquire INTO lns aP-
plicabilty OF the right OF self DEFENSE ana 70
instruct them substantially that they must flnd
the defendant guilty Of murder. The argu-
ment to the Jury was opened for the prosecu-
ton BY Deputy District Attorney Pratt, the par
being density packed witt ladies, almost 20 the
exclusion of lawyers. He was responded 70
by Wellington III a most subtle aud care
full two hours speech in the course OF Whien
he alternately held Dick Turpin mp as q model
OF courage end OF cOWardice, and as Q teller o.
truth and d blackencd perjurer and assassin
az II best suited the expianSticn * Ia
down, wffii6 SONIC OF the jHT0Tssr csfsees@ia5
few susceptible ones we're moved to tears.
Judge Hudson charged the jury at great
\ length. defining homicide and its different ue-
greea. He affirmed some OF the points OK tno
defense, but on the land controversy and sell,
defense principle involved, wholly overru'oo
them His instruction. was as follows:
The controversy between mr.. Bel ana inc
Ward BOYS over this claim is not involved ~
this trial You have nothing 10 do with That