Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1890-06-06
Bob Roberts, Who Confessed to the
MOffet Assault, Fined 500
and Discharged.
The Court Administers a Scathing
Rebuke and Wishes the Law Pro-
vided More Severe Penalty.
Roberts Pays His Fine to the Clerk
and Walks Out and His Bonds
men Are Relieved.
District Court.
from Fridays DaiIy.1

pAS SuoO VI JILL tos Nllmu was ICoulICus
The first witness was Thos. WEIGH. BE
stated that On the morning of the assault
upon Mr.. Motfet, he was in Mr.. Cressy's
store talking with Mr.. Cressy, when Mr..
Jerry Duane came in. Duane stated that
he had just came from Griffin's saloon, and
that Mr.. Griffin had came into the saloon,
and throwing down a revolver, had said
with an oath that he had ,.done upD Moffet.
Myron hutchinson and Bert Gray testi-
fed to seeing L. N. Griffin leave his saloon
on the mort ng of the 22d of January,
1888, and that he was Joined by Jerry Duane
near the Western house. ~ p.
Dr.. Porter next testified. He stated that
he attended Mr.. Moffet Immediately after
his assault two years ago. In describing
the wounds, the doctor said that there
were two scalp wounds, cut to the bone.
He had a bruise on his back and his nose
was swollen and black, but not broken.
Since the assault the witness had attended
the plaintiff, who had complained of a dull
headache and shooting pains where his
wounds were; he has shown very slight
symptoms of paralysis-the very slightest.
When he walks, DR.. Porter had noticed an
unsteady gait, and his feet did not seem to
go down as they ought. There seems to be
a partial insensibility in the limbs. Some
times a man will receive a slight injury to
the head with serious results, while another
man may receive much more serious injur-
les, including a fracture of the skull, with
less serious results.
Frank LAVAL was called to verify the
transcript Of his notes as taken at the for
mer trial. The plaintiff, W. T. Moffet, was
called in rebuttal. He produced the cap
object of this testimony being to direct the
jury to the idea that the hole in the cap
could not have been made by a blow from
a fist.
Mrs. Golf was called on rebuttal also, and
identified the cap as the one that the plain
tiff wore at the time OF the assault.
The plaintiff and the defendant then
tention to the d%esirability of the case be-
ing. shortened as much as possible, and
Judge Francis said that as far as he was
concerned, he was willing that the case
should be submitted to the jury without
argument on the part of the counsel, and
under the charge Of the court. Mr.: New,
ton said that the attorneys for the plaintiff
would not be doing justice to their client
by following the suggestion of Judge
Francis. Tnereupon MI. Hanitch opened
the case for the plaintiff and proceeded to
review atlength the testimony. He claimed
that Bob. Roberts came and testified for
a consideration, and a man who will de-
liberately tell a story in the cold blooded
way he did, will swear to a lie.
The court took the noon recess on Mr..
Hanitch finishing his address.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Judge Francis addressed the jury on the
occnr,h11rr If nn,,r hic 0<3Irnrr WIN =,
many parts. dramatic and forcible. He ar
raigned Mr.. Hanitch for deriding Major
Dickey as ''old Dickey,'' and claimed that
it did not become counsel to deride an old
man, sixty-ive years of age-a man who
had given his testimony with the clear
ness of a man of forty-fve. He (Judge
Francis) might just as we'll deride "Betsy
Gray" who had been a witness for the
other side, but he would not do that. Judge
Francis reached the climax in his speech
when he set forth the virtues of Bob Rob-
erts. He scorned the attorney who had
called Bob Roberts a brute, and had come
here for a consideration. He (Judge Fran
cis) thought that in the Judgment day, q
man like Bob Roberts would be in a bet
ter position than many of the sanctified
men, covered with broadcloth, who when
walking down the street are afraid they
man as Rob Roberts. To shield his old
partner-tO prevent Levi N. Griffin from
suffering for all offense that he had not
COMMUNICATION Roberts, when beyond the
Jurisdiction of the court, came up volunta-
rily from Kentucky, and testified to the
truth. At the trial of the indictment, Gen.
Hughes and MI. Hollembaek, the attorneys
for rho .6QfpnSa had Mr. Pnhortc bnro
ready to give testimony, but the attorneys
concluded that it would not be necessary
to call him, and he was not called.
Mr.. Newton then addressed the jury for
the plaintiff. He claimed that Judge Fran.
els in his address had made statements
that We're not true, and which he (Mr. New
tom believed Judge Francis knew were
were not true. Mr.. Newton then proceeded
to review the testimony. He did so at
some length; claimed that the alibi had not
been made out; and that the defense had
wholly failed to make out their case. He
expressed his opinion of Bob Roberts,;
called him a swagRerer, a braggart and a
p%erjurer, and expressed satisfaction that
the smell Of the jail hung around him.
Judge Rose Their charged the jury. The
attorneys On each side excepted to para
graphs-Judge Francis to a paragraph
which gave the jury authority to bring in
exemplary damage as well as actual dam
dScs IL Glloy uuu GldG tll0 u6I0QQa1C COM
mitted the assault. Mr.. Newton excepted
TO a part Of the charge which gave the
jury authority to take into consideration
the pr0vOcatiOn which might have been
given by the newspaper article, provided
that such article was calculated to arouse
the anger and passions of the plaintiff.
The jury then retired.
AN INSURANCE CASE.
A jury wa then summoned in the case
of James B. Glasscock VS.. The Dakota Fire
and Marine Insurance company. Mr..
Newton appeared for the plaintiff and
Judge Dillon of South Dakota, and Jami-
son & Boucher for the defendant. @
EVENING SESSION. 49,.
Mr.. Newton in opening the case for Mr..
Glasscock, sad that in September 1881, his
client took out a policy Of insurance in the
defendants company, giving therefor a
note for $50. In December 1887, fire burned
rs tons Of hay worth $456, for which sum
the suit was brought. Witnesses were
called on both sides. The defense
admitted that the fire took place and that
the property burned was worth the amount
claimed, but objected to pay the loss be-
cause the premium had not been paid at
the time of the fire, as required by the
terms Of the application, and for other