The weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1891-1894, 1893-09-29
DISTRICT COURT.
Gets SOL. Damage Suit Against
Officers Shea, Yates and Martin
on Trial.

the Butte IL Montana Commercial com
pany brought In sealed verdict Tues
day evening, which was read in court
yesterday morning. The finding was
for the plaintiff and the damages were
fixed at S6l1. After the verdict had
been announced \. J. Shores, attorney
for the defense, asked for stay of pro-
ceedings in order to prepare statement
on motion for new trial.
State vs. S. j. Merritt; Donovan &
Lyter were entered as attorneys for the
defense.
Devine vs.. Wildekopf; renstated on
the calendar.
Minnie Barnard vs. Joseph Hamilton
ct al; trial by jury; ID verdict was rem
dcred for the defendant.
Crcswell vs. Montana Central railway;
physicians certificate was presented
to the effect that the plaintiff was not
able to appear in court at this time, SO
the case was continued until Oct. >.
J. II. Evans VS., Lizzie Evans; time al
lowed plaintiff in which to pay into court
defendants attorney fees was extended
until Oct. >.
d. J. Phillips VS.. John Shea, Sol Yates,
and John Martin for $500 damages
now on trial; Bishop & Martin appear
for the plaintiff and City Attorney Lar
gent for the defense. The jury is com
posed of j. b. Gully, W. II. Ulm, Y. +.
Wilson, c. IL. Campbell, w. S. Frary, j.
c. Wells, G.. A.IGoodman, j. ID. Young,
II. l.. Descombe, j. r. Bush, J. G. Bun
dy, and j. Il. Ross.
The plaintiff was placed on the stand
first. He testified that he had lived in
this city two years and was employed in
the car shops on the West side. He
roomed in the Cascade hotel and on the
night of Sept. 4, when the shooting oc-
Cured in the alley in the rear of that
hotel, in which George McCleary was
implicated, the plaintiff was in room
over Whytes blacksmith shop. After
the shooting the plaintiff left the build
ing by walking down the incline used
to run carriages to the repair shops on
the second floor, intending to go to the
hotel. When he reached the ground
two men at that time unknown to him
grabbed him and Cne of them struck
him over the head with Il six shooter.
As they took hold of him he did not
know who they were ana naturally
tried to pull away, when he was stunned
by the blow referred to. He could not
remember which one hit him as he was
dazed by the blow and it was quite dark
at that part Of the alley. AS soon as he
learned that they we're Officers he made
no further resistance. lie accompanied
them to jail and when he got where the
light could fall on the faces of his cap
tors he saw they were Jack Shea and
Sol Yates. Arrived at the Jail he asked
if he could have doctor to dress his
wounds. He was taken to DR.. Welt
mans o.hce and aftcrward released on
so bail. At the request Of his attorney
he showed the scar to the jury. The
medical treatment cost him -. lie lost
a weeks work by reason of the injury.
lie WAS getting 500 per month from
the railroad company, He said that
Shea afterward acknowledged doing the
hitting. On the cross examination
he admitted resisting the officers
as, not knowing their business,
he thought perhaps they were
robbers. lie did not remember seeing
Martin there and as on direct eyamlna-
tion could not say who hit him. 1t was
hard to tell who grabbed him as there
was crowd that had been attracted by
the shooting around the incline when he
came down. He could not remember
whether it WAS Pontet who arrested him.
He admitted going around town while
walting for his wound to heal but claim
ed he W ~ to weak to work Just then.
Fred Arkell was the next witness Tor
the plaintiff. He recognized the plant
iif as the man he saw coming down the
gangway Just after the shooting. lie
saw Shea and Yates grab Phillips. The
latter had his hand in his hip pocket as
though trying to draw a gun and Yates
pinioned the man s arm to his body 10
prevent him drawing the supposed
weapon One of the officers struck the
plaintiff and he yelled ''murder'. After
that Shea told the man they were Of
ticers, and ordered him to stand right
there" His cross examination did not
bring out any thing materially different,
Llyod Hugh Ball, John Dem. and
Percy Wilmott also testified in about
the same line for the plaintiff. After
which the plaintiff rested.
When the defense was about to place
Sol Yates on the stand the plaintiffs at
torneys objected to the introduction Of
evidence by the city attorney on the
ground that the answer to the complaint
was not specific as TO the line of defense
to be offered. The lawyers argued the
point at some length and the court fin
ally allowed the defense to amend the
answer to conform with the evidence to
be presented after which an adjourn
ment was taken until this morning,
The criminal calendar will be taken up
after this action is disposed Of.