The Mineral argus., 1884-07-31

IL va AZ tAo hl4uthts Qlu not see tha ~.
toll Of Fred Ward On cross-examinaf;oD PpdM55
he did not see Lair have a pistol nor gnn. ~
only gun / saw was in the shack: went with III
party from the headquarters building; there
were three or foaF little parties; did not see
any weapons in the hands of any of onr nart;oo
from the time of going there to coming bacI.
remember the incident of some other r1ar1
coming out Of the shack; he was told To
throw cp his hands; he threw them up. and
Col Uline said:
DON'T SHOOT That MANI"
1 did not know any man was going to shoot
him. / was thirty or forty feet from bir,
Ledfeld, Maly, Mullarkey, Col. Ulme and nv
self were about him. If there were Others
they were of the same party. There were no
weapons there that l saw. Saw a shotgun in
front of the shack after all was over. Iedfeld
wanted to take it along. Uline told him ii 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: "Hello."
He soon opened the door and asked: aWhat
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 a b.. IN
down you frstl" Bell and he then scufled, and
Charley Ward came in the door and shot five
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.
l did not speak at once till I felt the pain.
when l told the boys l was shot l went about
sixty yards from the shack to Uline He gave
me a handkerchief to bandage 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 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 commune
cation and to promptly report envy 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 o.
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 intent to wound or kill any of its
members and before any act of violence by any
of said crowd, without previously communf-
eating to such crowd any request to depart,
such firing was unlawful and f~elonious 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-
sistance Charles Ward was killed, it was done
in self-defense and was justitiable.
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 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
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 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
ont 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 unprovoked murder on
& 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 jury;
whether the facts and circumstances in this
case did not entitle them to inquire INTO the ap-
plicabilty 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
by Wellington in a 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 a teller of
truth and a blackened perjurer and assassin,
as it best suited the explanation of that
nights transactions. The defendant broke
down, while some of the jurors, especially a
few susceptible ones were moved to tears.
Judge Hudson charged ii. 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 oYerruled
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
may have been cannot now affect the guilt or
innocence of this defendant and cannot in any
event furnish a justification or excuse for TINS
homicide. Such controversies should be set
tied in the proper form and not on this trial
He Gfatad this nrOunGitOn in relation To the