The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-05-11
IT GOES TO The JURY
The Defendant Spencer Now
Awaiting the Verdict.
ARGUMENTS MADE YESTERDAY
Mr. Brown Takes Thirty Exceptions to the
Judges Charge-The Jury to Report
This Morning.


capacity, while the inside of the bar wa;
crowded with members of the bar anG
friends, relatives and acquaintance of the
defendant.
J. L. RAwLINS,
who had been cut off by the judge when the
hour for adjournment arrived the previous
evening, arose to finish his argument,
which lasted about three hours altogether.
Mr. HiIes, he said, had stated that Hick-
man got 4 horse and wagon and
helped the defendant out of town. There
is no evidence to that effect. Mr.. Hiles
dJGUt-e5S Thought i necessary, l suppose,
to bolster up his case. AS to the testimony
of Leonard Phillips and Henry Gushing,
tn " doubtless attempted to cOncOct a story
that would tit. But in this they failed.
Phillips says Hickman shouted "Gitn
Gushing says that Hickman, instead of aid
ing the defendant, shouted IN drop him ~
and covered him with his revolver. Phil
lips declares positively that there We're
only two soldiers: all the other witnesses
declare there were i've. If Hickman had
done as Phillips says, he would have shown
Il connection with the man who shot, but
al the other witnesses say he appeared, at
least. to be in pursuit. 1t is apparent from
Phillips own statement that he testified
falsely He makes Of himself the leading
character. When the doctor could not find
the bullet, according to Phillips, he found
it for him. Why, if that testimony
was true, the ball passed up outside of the
ribs. and it was the bungling doctor who
inflicted the fatal wound while probing for
the bullet But it is not true that Phillips
did Us he says: he simply told you what
was untrue. He says parties were there
when it was shown they We're not, and his
whole story should be thrown out as IN
worthy of belief AS to Cushing he said
he was subpenaed by the prosecution, but
his name was not Oh the subpnnaS. There
was one name, BOOr: thus was Gushing
brought in under a mask by the prOsecu-
ton, to deprive the defendant of the OppOr-
uuity to meet his statements. He said Jason
Luce was there but the other witnesses
say he was not The prosecution had
summoned William and NJ. H. Luce, but
kept them out of the way lest he should
get ont of them the fact that Jason Luce
was not there. They feared that these
men would testify that Luce was out on
the mail route with the pony express, 800
miles from here. Gushing says Howard
Spencer was with Hickman, Luce and
Stringam at II a. N. of the day of the
shooting. George B. Spencer says he was
with him from 10 till y that day, and
neither Luce, Stringam or Hickman were
seen by him.
will say we have been able to derive no
assistance from our client. The prosecu-
tiOn have not proved that he was the man
who fired the fatal shot. If he was there
AT all he cannot tell of it. From the time
of his terrible injury by Pike for two or
three years his mind is total blank. His
memory contains not trace of the occur
senceS that followed, nor Of Sergeant Pike.
OF course, Pike said it was Spencer who
shot him II was likely that he
t6;2uld come to that conclusion from
the fact that it was Spencer whom
he had injured. But the evidence of the
witnesses for the prosecution cause
grave doubt. even from their standpoint,
0f Spencer being the man. Men who were
Dgarest to the scene, and who knew Spen-
Ger well, did not recognize him as the man
who fired If these men could not recognize
him in broad daylight, do you suppose that
Pike who had seen Spencer but once, and
that about dark, when he Drained him with
his lnusl ct, would recognize hlm3 1t Is
highly imprOb lOle. IS it not more likely
that, instead of Pike saying that 1t was
howard Spencer who shot him, that he
merely expressed a belief to that effect,
based upon the knowledge that Spencer
was the man he had wronged:
The character of the injury inflicted by
Pike on Spencer, and the consequences on
the defendant was then discussed at
leyyth by Mr. RaWlinS who stated that
pike had afterwards met with but re
tributiYe justice for his brutal deed. The
evidence IS clear that, at the time PIKE was
shot. if Spencer did it, he was not IN a state
of mind to be responsible for his actions.
The torture he endured for the months
following the terrible scene in March at
Rush valley no human tongue can tell. Can
we wonder that when he saw the brute,
Pike. that he had an impulse to lntilct upon
him merited punishment! Under such cir
cumstances would not the wound be feIt
afresh? And would you say that, II sane
man had followed and slain the one VINO
had inflicted such a terrible injury, he
was not justified. What Of 1t, II hun
bred desperadOes aided him to escape: Was
the provOcatiOn lessened by that, even II 1t
were true! 1t is stated that Pike tried to
draw a weapon Is it not probable that
when he saw the face of the man whom he
had so brutally stricken down, he endeav-
ered to draw weapon to protect himself
from the retributive justice That was 10
come? The act of Staying Pike was not
that of a coward. 1t was not the act OF a
sane man to go there, to a man in the midst
of armed friends, and call him out ana
shoot him Bill Hickman would not have
dared to engage in such plan. None out
an insane individual would have attempted
such a desperate deed.
MIR. RaWlins began to refer to events IN
the early history of the territory, when the
court checked him. Mr.. Rawlins replied
that Mr.. Hiles, Of the prosecution, had been
granted considerable latitudein this regard
The speaker, however, cOnformed to the
ruling of the court, and closed his argument
by asking the jury TO acquit the defendant
because that was his Just due. He declared
that there was no excuse or palllation foi
this prosecution.
LIE GRAND YOUNG
followed, He said it was a rule of law tina
the prosecution should prove its case. Tit
gentlemen engaged for the government haC
left no stone unturned to do this, but haC
not been able to do so. 1t had been charac
teristic of some of the witnesses for thu
prosecution that they were apparently
anxious to have inflicted upon some ont
the penalty of death. Mr. HounE
then reviewed the evidence IN thu
case. When Cushing's testimony wa
reached, it was branded as false. For In
stance his testimony about Bill Hickman
standing in the rear of Cushlng's snOe shol
and examining his pistols, while two mel
in plain view were watching him, was to'
improbable for belief. Hickman, desper
ado as he was, was not such fool as Jnat
and no one who knew him would ever be
lieve anything ike that about him. Hick
man never engaged publicly IN homlclde
He never took such risks of being shot, "a
IL was said he did on this occasion, by Cush
ing and Phillips. But all the other evidenc'
coatradicts the statements Of these tw,
witnesses, who evidently testified to al
they saw themselves, and a great deal tina
they heard others say they saw, but Whlcl
never actually occurred.
Mr.. Young then reviewed the aHalr