Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1888-05-16
NOT GUILTY.
s,nnEY TERMINATION OF THE
E4MOUS KU KLUX CAsES.
uro.eedings in the United satate Court
y~esterday-An IndictmentTh That would
Mot Hold water-The Result.

F.. .ssd,ugs in the United satate Cour
y~ss,erday-An Indictment That woul,
Mot Hold w~ater-The Result
The court room in which the Unite,
States Court is being held was crowded
yesterday both within and without tn
.oi,iup. There. were more than the usua
npmber al attorneys in attendance and ii
edition there were the twenty.fcur tria
;urors who had been subpenaed, and thii
array was supplemented by six or eight de
fendants, and complaining witnesses, and
ahout eighty other witnesses, who wert
supposed to be disinterested. The cause o.
tbis throng was the fact that the trial O
the United States VS.. N. B. Ringing ct al.
had been set for a hearing. They are what
is known as
TEE KU KLU CASES,
N called because the indictments were
framed and it was sought to try the de.
fendants under the United States laws
against conspiracy to assault which was
framed during the reconstruction days.
The offense alleged in the Indictment is that
the Defendant, Ringing and others, in pur-
suance Of O. conspiracy entered the cabin OF
Sam Coleman Inc Louis Demar's, the
owners and locators Of the Charles
Clarke No. 2 lode mine in the Flint
Creek district and assaulted them with pis-
tolls, guns, etc., put a rop about their
necks, threatened to hang them, ordered
them to leave and never return to the dis
trict, and by force attempted to compel
them to sign a deed conveying all of their
interest in the said mine to one of the at
lacking party. The United States was
represented by District Attorney Smith
and Messrs. Cole & Whitehall, and the de-
tense by Messrs. Knowles e. Forbis. and
Stapleton & Robinson. After some time
had been spent in challenging, a jury was
selected and sworn as follows: Thomas C.
Porter, Jere Roach, John M. Bowes,
Thomas Harper, M. Gensberger, w. B.
Miller, Henry j. Price, J.. Fl. Shaw, Daniel
Yeager, Fl. II. Horst, Charles Carleton,
and L.. H. Ingraham. With the exception
Of Miller, who lives in Deer Lodge, the en-
tire panel is from Butte.
THE BALL OPENS.
1t having previously decided that the
defendants should be tried separately Mr..
Rugeiing was arraigned and pleaded not
guilty. District Attorney Smith then
briefly addressed the jury stating what the
Government expected to prove, and Louis
Demars was sworn and took the witness
stand. After the usual preliminary ques-
toBs he was asked 'are you a citizen of
the United State" when an AFFECTION was
raised by Mr.. Stapleton to n testimony
on the ground that the indictment was err
roneous, in that it alleged that witness was
one of the owners and locators of the
mine, which allegation was not borne out
by the records. A lengthy legal discussion
followed in which Messrs. Stapieton, Cole, |
Smith and Knowles participated. The de-
feuse urged that inasmuch as the indict-
ment alleged that the two men, Coleman
and Demars, were owners, thai act must
be shown. The law OF the United States |
requiring that the names Of locators should !
appear upon the original notice and the
Territorial law t at the names should APP
pear upon the record as filed, was quoted.
THEY CLAIM AN INTEREST.
Mr.. Smith argued that the mine had been
located by three parties for the benefit OF
five, two of whom were the parties who had
been assaulted, but whose names did not
appear upon ~the,notice on the record. He
expected to prove. the existence of a verbal
contract to that effect which gave the two
men at least an equitable interest in the
property and satisfied the requirements of
the law. He urged that while the letter OF
the law nay say the locators, that did
not prohibit three partners from locating ,
for the benefit of five, nor did it by any |,
means deprive the two of their rights. If
there was any objections to their holding
an interest, it could only come from the CO. ,
owners, and they having complied with the
requirements OF the statute, were entitled
to hold against all parties except the
United States. Mr.. Knowles quoted from an !
opinion OF the United States Supreme
Court, in which it was urged, that On ac-
count Of the severe penalties attached to
the law under which the case was being
tried, that it should be strictly construed.
Mr.. Cole argued that the location had been
duly made by the plaintiff under the laws
and constitution OF the United States; that
the rights OF the two under their
verbal contract with the other three gave
all an equal standing before the law.
KNOCKED OUT.
The court ruled that as the statutes of
the United States in terms required that
the location notice should be signed by the
%lOCaters, ard that as it was not even al.
legged in the indictment that this provision
had been complied with, the objection was
sustained.
Mr.. Cole then took the indictment, n
quoting from its terms, offered to prove
that plaintiff were in the mine,
that it had been located in May, and that
on July % they were in possession, that
subsequent to dale they had acquired title
by deed, the facts OF the assault by defend
ants. To each Of these offers the defense
objected, and the objection was sustained
and an exception asked and granted, the
court stating that if it could be shown
that Coleman and Demars had acquired
title by deed prior to the assault, that their
right was then the same as that OF the I
original discoveries, but unless that was
done he must rule that three persons could
not locate for five unless it was shown In
the record as required by law. The deeds
conveying the property were then offered,
but as they were dated August !, they were
ruled out.
NOT GULLY.
The legal battle had lasted about four
hours, and as there was nothing further to
do Mr.. Knowles moved hat the jury be
directed to return a verdict OF not guilty.
Mr.. Smith asked leave to withdraw a
Juror. The court said that that was
permissible in civil cases but not in crlml-
nal. Mr.. Smith said that they had noted
exceptions and asked il the appellate court
set aside the ruling of this court, and re-
handed the case for trial how they could
proceed in the face Of a verdict o~facquittal:
There was some more sparring OF counsel
and the court said that in it's opinion, IL
the upper court remanded the case the
trial would be begun de Dovo without
prejudice to the government. The jury
then returned a verdict of not guilty and
The prisoner was discharged and his bail
generated.
OTHER PROCEEDINGS.
IN the district Court there were a number
Of motions made in civil cases and several
oetnurrers heard.
John O'Donnell indicted for assault with
intent to kill was given until to-day to
challenge. John F. Forbis having been
appointed his attorney for that purpose.
a z. Stewart indicted for rape. De-
marer to the indictment filed and hearing
Set Tor Monday.
Is IT Il STILL HUNT?