Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1884-07-24

~ o ssnv .ster.srd. stthattims Lair had no gun;
he didn't FIRE then; Richard Turn'n did not
witness showed on the map how he ran
down on tho west side OF the Bell snack,
ooming round and falling near the east side OF
the shack. -.
he was at the inquest; did not see the pis,
tol ~ Fred Ward On cross-examinanon SAID
he ala not see Lair have q pistol nor gum me
only gnn / saw WAS IN the shack went with the
PARTY from the Headquarters buiiding; mere
were three or four little parties; ma not see
any weapons in the hands OF any OF our pssnps
from The time of gong there TO coming back
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.poN'T SHOOT THAT MANI
l did nc. know any man was going 70 sno V'
him. was thirty or forty feet from nm
Jedield. Maly, Mullarkey, Col Uhne and my
self were about him IL there were others
they were of the same party. There were no
seapons there that | saw. Saw q shotgun IN
front OF the shack after all was over. ledheid
wanted to take it along. Uline told him IT was
not his and he should LET u alone
Witness vas 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. ms
was the complaint Of others who had made
statements.
Pat McQueeny, another defendant, said:
Am twenty-three; WAS behind Bel AT Warus
shack when Bell called
Bell said; Hello, Ward"
Ward said: Hello"
He soon opened the door and asked; what
do YOU wanty,'
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 q b., III
down YOU f~irst!" Bell and he then scutfed, and
Charley Ward came in the door and shot hyS
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 whichhe was standing when
struck.
when 1 told fhe BOYS | was shot / went about
sixty yards from the shack TO Uline. He gave
me 4 handkerchief 70 bandage up my arm. To
the time OF this shooting not one evil word was
said by us.
Cross examined, witness said
None of our party had guns. / heard the
command 10 scatter and fire into the shack. 1
do not know who gave it, There was half a
minute between Charley's shots. The fifth
shot struck me. After l was shot it was a half
a second till / felt blood and told the boys l was
shot; heard Elliott say "My hands are up;''
when went to uipe, southeast ma
handkerchief TO bind my arm; Uline walked to
the party; was sixty yards away; did not see
A man run south think it was Elliott | saw run
ming east; | did not see any run 10 Bells shack,
or fall; on the way going up i heard some one
say 81 think some OF the boys were killed; hrst
/ was sure some Of the boys we're shot the next
morning.
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
10 United States Receiver Anderson shortly be-
fore his death OF his purpose Of going on Beus
claim, was ruled out by the court The jury
men admonisbed very strictly in the duty to re-
ceive neither spoken nor written communl-
cation and TO promptly report any attempt TO
communicate with them.
The greatest legal efforts ever witnessed IN
North Dakota are th6se seen and heard in the
Ward cases. The prayers for charges ON
braced the usual ones in regard 10 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 the 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 aud before any act Of violence by any
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 10 be
injured 10 an extent sufficient 10 prevent the
~offense, or by any other person in defense OF
the person 10 be injured 10 the same extent,
provided that the force Of violence used in SO
resisting was not more than sufficient to pre-
vent such o~ffense; and II by means OF such re-
~sistance Charles Ward was killed, 4 was done
in self defense and was justifiable.
On the point Of threats they ask the follow
ing, in order 10 determine who made the first
assault:
The Jury may consider the testimony Of the
threats testified to lave been made BY Charles
Ward before thu fatal collision, even II such
threats were not communicated to the defend
ant or heard by him.
In regard 10 non participation directly in the
killing, they ask the following:
II it is not proYed beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant fired the fatal shot, and it
Is a reasonable hypothesis raised by the testi-
mony that the fatal shot was fired by some 9TH
er person than the defendant then you must
aequit him.
In reply 70 this Wailin, for the d~ictrict at
torney, maintained that the PRINCIPLES of self
defense were inapplicable TO this case and the
defendant was not entitled 20 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 mp ran
ont and was flying, for his life was immaterial
He denied in toto the position taken by the ccun-
sci for the defense, and said he was sure his
honor would not be induced to participate in
the attempt to give the jury sn excuse to shield
the most dastaraly and unprovokod 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 10 do what it had no powe
TO do under the constitution-take away
the question OF fact from the Jury;
whether the facts and circumstance in this
case did not entitle them TO inquire into the APP
plicabilIty Of the right of self defense, and 10
instruct them substantially that they must find
the defendant guilty Of murder. The argu-
ment to the jury was opened for the prosecu-
ton by Deputy District Attorney Pratt the bar
being density packed with ladies', almost 10 the
exclusion of lawyers. He was responded TO
by Wellington in a most subtle aud 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 a teller Of
truth and a blackened perjurer and assassin,
as II best suited the explanation of that
nights transactions. The defendant broke
down, while some of the jurors, especially q
few susceptible ones we're moved TO tears
IN efforts of Van Arman and Davis were
the theme OF general admiration, the formers
for Its familiarity with every legal principle,
and the iatter's for the ingenuity with which Il
clothed the weakest points Of tho defense and
made them appear towers of strength. Balls
enort was also q strong one, and ~ usual
had great weight witt, The jury.
III repelling the argument on the assumption
that the settlement OF the Northwest had been
attained by many bloody ARRAYS, he said that IN
a practice OF sixteen years he had not heard OF
but one case beside this in which a homicide
was committed in q land dispute in the North.
wost "
Judge Hudson charged tho jury at great
length, defining homicide and it, different de-
grees. He affirmed some Of the points OF the
defense, but on the land controversy and self
defense principle involved, wholly overruied
them His instruction was as follows:
The controversy between Mr.. Bell and the
Ward boys over this claim is not involved in
thus trial You have nothing 10 do with that
You could not adjust ii IL you should attempt
IL Whatever the merits Of that controversy
may have been cannot now affect the guilt Oh
inno ence Of this defendant and cannot in any
event furnish q justification or excuse for this
homicide. Such controversies should be set
tied IN the proper form and not on this trial
he stated this proposition In relation 10 the
principal OF self defense:
III you find from the evidence that after the
deceased, Charles Ward, had ceased firing
from the door, lie cried out that he gave up or
surrendered, which was heard by those on the
outside, aud he was told 10 come out and dill
come outs and run from the shack in an attcmpt
70 escape, and you find that when some dis