Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1890-05-30
for the county shall have inquired into his
mental condition.

mental condition.
Anderson Healy's attorneys. Messrs
Jamison, Hanitch and Newton, desired to
demur to the indictments found against
their client. The demurrer claimed that
the facts stated do not constitute a public
offence, and asked hat the indictments be
dismissed, and declared a bar to further
proceedings for the same offence.
Aftey a short discussion between the
counsel and the court, the making of argu-
ments was waived by the attorneys for the
state and the defendant, and the demur-
rerS were Overruled.
Mr.. Healy then pleaded not guilty to
both indictments. New bonds were order
ed and the case will be tried in due course.
The two bonds are for $1,000 each.
A CONTINUED CASE.
Witnesses were then examined for the
defense in the case of the National Bank of
Commerce vs.. Arthur McGinness, and the
argument in the case will be completed at
q later date, it being a court case.
MOFFET vs.. GRIFFIN.
Judge Rose came in on the train during
the forenoon, and en- his arrival proceeded
with the above entitled case. Judge
Francis, who with Mr.. Barnes appears for
the defendant, moved the case. In this
case Judge Winchester does not preside
for the reason that he appeared with Dis
trict Attorney Hanitch to prosecute MIR.
Griffin at the time of the criminal trial.
The first crack was an affidavit from Moi
fet stating that Sheriff Donnelly is very
friendly with Mr.. Griffin and very unfrien-
ly with said Moffet, and that any tales
men selected should not be selected by the
sheriff, but by some one else. Mr.. Newton
read the affidavit, and proceeded to state
that Sheriff Donnelly's conduct was not all
it should be at the time of the criminal
trial. and that public sentiment was that
way.
Judge Francis objected to any such
statements being made, rejecting on the
sheriff.
Mr.. Newton continued that this case
was one that had excited a great deal of
comment in the community, and he de-
sired mat some disinterested party be ap-
pointed to call talesmen.
Judge Francis called on Mr.. Newton to
present a section of the code on which he
bases his application.
Judge Rose: l think it is the duty of
the court, and within his power, where
the court is satisfied, or where there is rea-
sonable ground to believe that there might
be some bias, unconsciOusly perhaps, to
appoint some one else.
Judge Francis objected to the motion.
The plaintiffs were willing that the sheriff
should do all his duty until it came to sum-
mon taleslnen who would come into court
under the eye Of the court, subject to chal-
lenge, peremptory and for cause. He an.
| nna red fnr tho Shariff &c bn did p,t ,r;cb
Sheriff So fpve wa it g gH forth rb 5ant w ths
a criminal trial and the de-.
PENDANT was acquitted, and the plaintiff
then went out and said that the court and
the court officials were biased. That was
where the affidavit originated.
Judge Rose said that he did not think
the granting of the application on the part
OF the plaintiff was any reflection on the
sheriff. He (Judge ROse) had the highest
respect for the Sheriff and ne thought it
would be better all round for some other
person to call the talesmen. He ordered
the coroner to select twelve good and law
ful men to act as taleSmen.
The defendant excepted to the ruling of
the court.
The court then adjourned till 2 p. IN.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
In the afternoon court opened at 2
o'clock, and Coroner Webb appeared with
the talesmen that he had been instructed
to summon.
At 4:25 a jury had been ssecured, the
anne Of the members of the jury beingh
as follows:
John Alfred Johnson, Ghas. Goodrich.
John W. Meyer, VIM. H. Mckinney,
Z. E: Semellng, Barney Flynn,
Austin Logan, Jas. L. Mcdonald,
L. h. Hatch, Herman Michaelson,
John Mckenzie, j. T. Mcdonald.
Mr.. Newton opened the case for the
plaintiff by reading the ~pleadings and by a
short address to the jury.
The complaining witness, William T
Motfet, then took the stand and gave his
testimony. He stated that he was past
twenty-three years of age; that he came to
live in Bismarck about the 18th of Febru-
airy, 1887; that on Sunday morning the 22d
of January, 1888. he was in his office, when
the defendant entered his office and began
to strike him and beat him with a reVol-
yer. He knew that it was Mr.. Griffin, as
he had met him a good many
times on the street though he
had never spoken to him before.
The witness gave a description of his
office and the place he was standing when
Mr.. Griffin came into his office. The ex.
animation of Mr.. Motfet had not been com.
DIRted when the cOurt rose