The semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1882-1886, 1885-10-31
GUILTY OF LARCENY.
The Jury Decide Against Fer
dinand Ward.
THE CLOSING SCENr
Ward Shows Signs Of An Inward
Struggle When the Verdict
Is Announced.

1I" Aonh, OcGODer zS.-lhe trial q
ferdinand Ward was concluded to-day.
-. ueorge Z. Chambers, the stenographer il
the case OF Holt against Warner, ant
George E. Spencer, cashier of the firm O
Grant & Ward, were examined briefly, bu
Their testimony developed nothing new.
The prosecution rested.
Counsel for the defense moved that tn,
State be required to elect on which charg,
IN the indictment they intended to ask til,
jury for conviction. The motion was de
MED temporarily.
Ex-Judge Cochran then opened for the
defense. He said his client had beer
bounded by the press, by financial men and
Dy members OF a prominent family, but the
jury had only to consider the evidence and
render verdict accordingly. Mr.. Fish, he
said, went on the stand as a
IA RESPONSIBLE WITNESS,
and 1T was the first time that a convict had
ever been called to the stand to testify
against a prisoner in the court of Oyer and
Ierminer. Fish was convict and his con.
dltlOn when summoned as a witness pre-.
vented his being liable for perjury and any.
thing less than murder. Fish comes here
animated by venom, swears to anything
that comes into his head, and being utterl '
irresponsible. he knows that he cannot be
held responsible if he testifes to try and
and send Ward to prison. He is probably
Tor pardon by making Ward the
scapegoat. In 1882 the
BANK WAS IN A DIFFICULTY
and Flsh's testimony could not be consid-
cred without confederation by other tes-
Ilmony. On the evidence, verdict OF guilty
was impossible. In a letter of March 20,
1884, in which Fish said to Ward that his
troubles were too much for him, Fish was
soliciting Ward for help.
William 5. Warner, who had entered t!,c
'oom during the remarks of the lawyer was
then called to the stand for the defense.
He testified that he knew Ward and recog-
1ized check for 81 800 which he had re-
:eived in the ordinary course of business.
After being certified to by the Marine Bank
t was deposited in the American Exchange
Bank. On cross-examination Warner said
le had received the check in Wards private
office and at the time had with him obliga-
ions on which money was due. The
lmount was profit on certain investments
With Grant Il Ward on Government certi-
icates. The witness could not remember
he form OF the obligation, but it was due
IN that day May 5, 1884"
THE DIFFERENCES DUE
m the investments resulted in his getting a
heck for ST, 800. All the contracts were
made direct with Ward in his private Office
IN May 9Th, he received contract for
much larger sum than ST. 500, which only
epresented the profit OF the old transac-
ion. Warner did not know where the con-
racts were, but thought possibly that he
ad some in his possession.
Julien T. Davies, receiver for the firm OF
rant 2y Wor1 novf +ostifoJ +bo4- Lo 41o1y
OF the assets of Grant & Ward.
N May 1854. he received ua rtsi. II. u.
1und IN boxes In tho Bssfa4ser-r 1.crfcDeposlC
company, which place the witness had
isited in company with U. S. Grant jr. lie
id not know
THE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES,
nd could not tell the names OF the parties
Who brought suit about them. SO great
vas their number that some OF the securi-
les had been delivered to their owners on
heir payment of the transfers which were
,ledged. The others were valueless, and
ONE were awaiting disposal by direction
II the court. OF $4,000 in bonds OF the
Buffalo and New York Railroad Senator
Jhaffee and Receiver johnson OF the Ma
inc Bank both claim them. Benjamin
Fish also stated. that some bonds were de-
iyered to him by order OF the court. In
,ne package where 125 bonds should have
been, 124 were
FOUND TO BE MISSING.
He had found $500 in the office on tax
NO possession and the bank account was
)verdrawn.
The assignment OF Grant " "aro was
offered in evidence.
Vino. Smith testified that between May
3d and May 5th, he had been negotiating
loans for the firm OF Grant u Ward, but dld
not know what became OF the money
realized. He could not approximate the
mounts of the loans made by the firm De
+ ween those dates. He wds representa-.
five of q firm on the Stock Exchange, and
also knew James D. Fish. This witness
virtually closed the case for the defense.
George s. Spencer was called to the stand
hv the District Attorney, but added moth
ing new to the testimony previously gwen
General Tracy asked the District AT
torney to elect upon which count he desired
to leave to the jury.
1--WE elect the second and fourth couhts'
said the District Attorney. >,
"Then," said Tracy, ~ move tht
of Ward, as the evidence does no'
hear out the Indictment. Ward ana no.
,rocnre the endorsement on the check OF
which The luulCUluCHp "eU'
Il in the usual business way.
The court denied the motion.
GONE TO THE JURY.
General Tracy summed up the evldenc'
for the defense, laying particular s'res
mon the fact that Fish, as convict wa
,,pt amenable to any penalty Tor perlur.
and holding that he was urged on by a YIN
dictive hatred OF the accused.
Colonel Fellows summed up Tor the sI;ete
contrasting the actions OF ward anu ISL ISL
At the time of the failure the former ral
awav while the latter awaited the catas
trophe like man. e.a,
o'clock. He defined the law ana read Th NJ
S+atnte covering the crime charged: IN
s,',ast;on was whether the defendant ha'
anv intent to defraud and OF such chal
acfer as to deceive a person OF ordinar.
nrndence. Had Ward procured the 81
pnn in snch y, wav? The whole case reste
IN one point, Did Ward obtain the ceftil
+;nn pf the S71,SO check? 1t was 10
10 ;mrv to decide on the evidence OF jaime
n w ES;sh and his brother Joe, the testlmon
- neither being contradicted. Ward wa
,,a+ alone on trial, but Justice, too, was
t,;al Public clamor should not 1n1iuene
tho ;nrv and last OF all money should no
interfere with the verdict.
The iurv retired at 1925 p. m.
SEEKING LIGHT.
At1o:15 p. m. the jury entered the coul @
r,,m and the testimony OF John II. Oar
,,ooo;v;ny teller OF the Marine Bank, wa
read It covered transactions IN regard
the checks upon which the indictment wa
framed. The jury then again retlreo'
At12.2O the jury again entered the coul
room and asked that james u. flsli Ie
t;noonv he read, as it was not clear wheth'
ornot the bank certified the checks on
count of Wards representatlo or IN
Jor to protect Ward from failing, as
failure would pull the bank down ais
The testimony was read and the Jury aga
retired.
Nrw YORK. October 29.-At 12:45 o'clo'
this morning the jury re-entered the cou
, 1nls and rendered verdict OF larceny
the first degree, for which the penalty Is t'
Years. within the discretion OF the court
HOW WARD TOOK THE VERDICT.
Ward gave evidence OF a severe strugs
&c he stood up to hear the verdict. In
snonse to the question, Have you an
tPEt tP;no to saw" he replied, Nothing" ),
Sentence was postponed until oaIura, y
morning. The case will be taken 70 .