The Black Hills union. [volume] (Rapid City, Pennington County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1889-1904, 1892-03-11
From Wenessay's Daily
CIRCUIT COURT.

. Q 80
From Wenessay's Daily
CIRCUIT COURT.
About four o'clock yesterday afternoon
ohm Hart was put on the stand for the de-
fence in the case of the State VS.. Keliher
Hart He testified that Mr.. Davis said to
him in reference to the steer that was still
out on the range that if he (Mr Hart) found
the animal, he could have him at the price
paid for the other FIVE which he had just
bought. that when he saw the brand on the
hide in Schleuning & Young's possession last
December, it looked about two years old and
that from actual knowledge he knew it to
have been put on March S, 1890 Mr.. Hart's
evidence went to show that the hide in
Schleuning & Young's possession was that of
one Of the FIVE steers purchased Of Mr.. Davis
and not Of the animal which Mr.. Davis
claimed to have had on the range, which ami
NAL Mr.. Hart said, he never saw and never
authorized to be branded with the three
heart brand He testified that Mr.. Davis
under controversy, but that he was apprised
of the fact that Davis had sold it to Scheun-
ing & Young, by outside parties. In cross
examination by Attorney Brown, Mr. Hart
claimed to have been handling four or five
hundred head Of cattle OF his own about the
time he bought the five steers, that Peter
Lemley helped to drive these five away from
the Davis ranch, that as a general rule he
knew his cattle by the brand although he had
thirty or forty which he knew by their gener-
al outline, that it was hard to tell the age Of
brand after it was a year old and that L
was impossible to tell it exactly when under
nine months Mr. Hart described the five
steers he bought.
Maurice Keliher corroborated the greater
portion of the previous witness's testimony.
He traced the fifth steer bought from Davis
through the year 1890, having seen him sew
eral times and lastly in the corral at Brennan
in September Of that year when he was about
to ship him, but was prevented doing so by
the herd in which the steer was, breaking
through til e corral from fright. This steer
got away then and was not shipped. The
witness said to the jury; eyes, gentlemen,
session, was the very hide of this same red
steer that was in the corral at Brennan"
He first heard OF Davis having sold the steer
to Schleuning & Young in September 1891.
~, A,,I1 IL
| examined by Mr.. Brown, he described the
! five steers as did Mr. Hart, he admitted hav-
| ing about FIVE hundred head of his own at the
| time he purchased the five from Davis and
that he knew his cattle by their brands.
Phil Miller thought that the brand on the
hide in Schleuning & Youngs possession was
March 1890. He admitted that he helped to
brand these FIVE animals and that no Others
with harpoon brand had been branded
thereafter. Several other witnesses were ex-
amined to about the same effect.
| Mr.. Horgan testified that steer resembling
the one claimed by Mr.. Davis to have been
! iJsl, Nao sSSii IuiilAiiss VII liz hHlS 9lOilS
range.
This summed up the whole evidence
Both sides rested their case. An effort wan
again made to take the case out of the jury's
hands, but again failed.
| Charles w. Brown then addressed the
jury. His effort was logical one, by many
considered the greatest he has ever made here
1t was concise statement of facts put in such
a way as to carry conviction, Then Colonel
Parker made "a grandiloquent address on be-
| half Of defendants From an oratoral stal.d-
point it was effective. Colonel Parker sus-
tanned his reputation of being a master hand
with a jury.
At 1890 this forenoon the judge delivered
the following charge to the jury, for which
the UNION is indebted to the courtesy of Mr.
| Carpenter, court Stenographcr,
CHARGE TO THE JURY.
Gentlemen OF the Jury:
In view OF the light l in which regard
this case,my instructions will.necessarily
be brief, and certainly not elaborate.
The offense as laid IN the indictment
charges these defendants with the crime
Of grand larceny committed ON or about
the 1Othday OF May, 1891, to which the
defendants have plead not guilty.
1 The burden is upon the state to estab-
lish all the material allegations OF the
Indictment, by competent evidence and
beyond a reasonable doubt. Should
you find from the evidence in this case
that at or about the time mentioned in
the'lndlctment, and prior to the finding
thereof by the grand jury, the defen-
dants did commit the crime of grand
larceny as alleged therein, your verdict
will be guilty.
Larceny is defined by onr statute as
the taking OF personal property, accom-
plished by fraud and stealth, with the
intent to deprive another thereof, and 1t
! also provides that one who finds such
personal property under circumstances
/ which give him knowledge, Or means OF
inquiry as to the true owner, and he APP
f propriates such property to his own use,
, or to the use OF another person who is
not entitled thereto without having first
, made such effort to find the owner, and
f restore the property to him as the cir
cumstances render reasonable and just
! is guilty of larceny.
have stated that it will be necessary
r for the state to prove each and all the
5 material allegations OF the indictment
: by competent evidence and beyond q
: reasonable doubt.
II A reasonable doubt is a doubt arising
from the evidence or the want OF evi
= dence for which good and sufficient rea,
{ son can be gwen predicated upon care
) ful, lmpassionate, unpreiudiced and i'm.
partial consideration Of all the facts and
circumstances Of the case.
"A ~