Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1884-1886, 1885-02-07

EstIis luhl tucN are thclc, Jul Decdu>c ilIis j
one of the peculiar processes by which law
yers construe testimony into justice-for
. their side Of the case. Besides,
those arraigned and the public always
the motive of the act. Character will wash
and mud-slinging is not even a momentary
; DETACHMENT.
This depression is made in kindness to all
concerned, and in simple justice to those
who had their regulations attacked in pub
lie. Their characters are as dear 10 them as is
that of he who made the arraignment, and
they cherish its purity as much. Therefore
he will not deny to them this word of ex-
plana;ion and the closing ar gument in the
case.
W. Z. Stanley followed his colleague in an
earnest argument for his client, in which his
points were the discrepancies in the evidence
for the prosecution. The limited amount
of testimony to show premeditation. The
disagreement in the evidence of Kellogg
and Blackman, That it did not necessarily
justify the force of three or four men and
two side-sticks 20 eject drunken man from
"A room. That the prosecution had to prove
and establish the guilt and that the evidence
was all previously arranged between the en-
| ployees of the office in favor OF the foreman
in fear of discharge from him.
Frank Dale, for the prosecution, admitted
that there were some slight discrepancies in
the minor details of the evidence for the
prosecution, but they were insignificant and
Of no real weight. 1t was a strong feature
| in favor of MS case as If demonstrated that
the witnesses had not gotten together and
arranged the evidence, but that each told
as it was seen by him at
time of excitement, agitation and i'm
minent danger. The jury must feel that
each had told the plain, honest truth as seen
and remembered by the witnesses. Ifthe
time or place Of defendant making threats
differed it was immiterial as all agreed that
the threats were made. Why Kellogg and
Biackman disagreed about defendant having
an open knife in his hand and making threats
with it, was because Kellogg was in the mid
die of the stairway and Blackrnan at the foot
when these things took place. Ayers had
authority 10 eject drunken or disorderly per-
sons from the Office. Why he took weapon
in hand WAS because he could not
eject two men who were just drunk
enough TO be in good fighting
condition without a weapon in case of
an emergency. Defendant was a tramp
Ayers was sober, industrious gentleman
and tirst-class citizen. The tramp comes to
town, gets drunk, and attempts to take the
life Of the man of good character and re-
sponsibe position. Williams was born and
raised in Texas. The great state of Texas
Great in lands, great in cattle and great in
ITS Democratic majorities; the last being not
least. The peculiar Texas idea is to learn |
the children the use of the knife and pistol |
They grow up and go out into the world |
with the Texas idea of, on the least provoca- |
ton, cutting and shooting. Occasionally |
this state spews out great shoals Of |
these dcsperadoes.-W. Z. Stanley: Frank. |
does that reduce the Democratic majority
Williams is one of these desperadoes |
Would you be safer in your homes with this |
man at large, Society should stand at the |
back Of the prosecuting witness in the dis
charge of his duties and the protection of |
his rights.
At l0:fS the case WAS given to the jury,
the court having previously but defined the
difference in the degree of crime embraced
in the indictment. The jury returned at
ll:2l with verdict Of guilty of simple as
sault. The judge remarked that there was
no real controversy in this case. The evil
dence was clear and plain. Injured wit
nesses vindicated) The defendant had no
regard for other peoples rights. Had
got half drunk on purpose to have
a row, and was prepared for anything.
He might not have intended to kill the fore
man of the office, though he didn't care. 1t
was immaterial to him what he did or Was
All he cared for WIS TO secure food enough
TO exit upon and whiskey TO get drunk.
II WIS MS OWN laGll Ilau Hau Itcu lUUu- |
ences and opportunities Was sorry he
could not make his sentence more severe
Would give him the outside limit of the law
and then sentenced INN to be confined in
the SedSwick county jail for one year and
to pay the costs Of prosecution, or stand
committed until the costs are paid
STATE vs. JOHN FoY
The next case called was that of the State
VS.. John Foy. Fov was charged with an
assault with intend 10 rob John Prunty on
the 2nd Of October last upon Douglas av-
enue. this city. This case will be remem-
bered as the one that occurred during the
fair last fall. \ countrymsn, John Prunty,
came 20 town 10 attend the fair He was at
Snitzlcr's saloon about l O'Clock at night:
there met four or five Young men. They
wanted some money TO get lunch. He
gave them 30 cents They put their hands
in his pockets TO assist him, as they said. 10
find IL Prunty had been drinking but
was not drunk. Foy pretended to
be quite drunk. Pretended 10 be
-tSh from the tutcs OF AQGOT-
Prunty started to take him 20 his room. Got
to junction Of Douglas and Lawrence ave-
nues and Fov struck Prunty on head with
some heavy weapon knocking him down and
almost sensless. Prunty grabbed his ankles
and called fo- assistance. This brought Of
icer Brazier onto the scene a. Foy WAS try
NC to stihe the cries Of his victim by pull
nc his coat up over his head.
The jury found him guilty as charged in
he indictment; and he was sentenced 20 two
-ears hard lsbo- in the state penitentiary.
Chas. W. Sacket, VS.. Adam Glszier; dis
missed without prejudice
Everett, Weddle 4 Co. rs. II. K Butler;
Judge Sluss having commenced the case
Frank Dale wss agreed upon as judge pro
EN- TO try the case The jury was empan- {
RELIED and court adjourned.
G. A. X.