River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1884-07-24

weapons there that saw Saw shotgun in
front Of the shack after all was over. Ledfeid
wantel to take it along. UlIne told him 1t was
not hi ! and he should let il 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, anosher defendant, said:
Am twenty three; was behind Bell at Wards
shack when Bell called
Bell said Hello, Ward.
Ward said. ssHellon
He soon opened the door and asked: "Whst
do you wantg'
Bell told him he came prepared TO move the
shack. When Ward came out with his hands
| on his hips and said: 'sYou SIN of b., I'll
| down you firstln Bell and he then scuffied, and
| Charley Ward came 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
did not speak at once TIL I felt the pain.
| when told Che 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 us.
Cross examined, witness said
None Of our party had guns. heard the
| command to scatter and fire into the shack. /
Il u
minute between Charley's shots. The fifth
shot struck me- After | was shot it was a half
| second till felt blood andtold the boys was
shot; heard Elliott say ''My hands are up;"
when Tens to ,vbon oiip Es a southeast asst
handkerchief to bind my arm; Uline walked to
| the party; twas sixty yards away; did not see
man run south; think it was Elliott saw run
ming east; | did not see any run to Bells shack,
or fall; on the way going up heard some one
| iF,ly af no
| was sure some Of the boys were 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
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 coInmun1-
cation and to promptly report any attempt to
communicate with them
The greatest legal efforts ever Witnessed in
North Dakota are these 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, credibilty OF
witnesses and reasonable doubt The special
position predcated on the theory of the de-
Tense, that they went to the Wafl shack only
with the intent of removing trespassers will
appear in the second request as follows:
If Charles Ward fired his pistol into the
crowd with intent 10 wound or Kill any of its
members and before any act of violence by any
of said crowd, without previously communi-
eating to such crowd any request TO depart,
such firing unlawful and telonious 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 offense; and if by means of such re-
sistanee Charles Ward was killed, it was done
in self defense and was justlfiable.
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:
If it is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant fired the fatal shot and it
is reasonable hypothesis raised by the test-
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 diotrict 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
took place before Charlie Ward gave up ran
out and was flying for his life was immaterial.
He denied in toto the position taken by the coun-
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 unproyOl1ed 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
l. \ -I,.f IoI rNrxCrs
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 APP
plicabilIty of the right of self defense, and to
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 to the
exclusion of lawyers. He was responded to
bv Wellington in most subtle and care
ful two hours speech, in the course OF which
he alternately held DICK 1urpln mp as { model
of courage and OF cowardIce, and as teller OF
truth and blackened perjurer and assassin,
as it best suited the explanation 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 Amman 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 1T
clothed the weakest points of the defense and
made them appear towers of strength Balls
effort was also strong one, and as usual
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 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 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 tho 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 10 Go with that
You could not adjust it if you should attempt
it. Whatever the merits of thar controversy
NAV have been cannot now affect the guilt or
limo tence 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 to the
principal of self defense:
If Won find from the evidence that after the
deceased, Charles Ward. had ceased firing
from the door, he cried ont that he gave up or
surrendered, which was heard by those on the
outside aud he was told to come out and did
come out and run from the shack in an attempt
TO escape, and you find that when some dis
lance from the snack ne was shot and killed.,
this was murder andnothiRg that had occurred
previously furnished any justification for the
killing, either by way of self defense or other
wise-if this fact be true, the time for self-de-
Tense to be necessary had passed.
He instructed them that they might inquire
whether any one else of the party fred tile IA
tai shot, and whether the defendant was there
with them for an unlawful purpose; charging
them that if death resulted from this common
unlawful design whoever didit all are equally
guilty of murder. The defense haYe raised
their exceptions to the charge Under the law
of Dakota the jury in murder cases must fix
the penalty, either death imprisonment for
life in case of conviction. The jury was charged
also in the manner of finding in case it is man
slaughter.
Tho two Aztec children who for soy