The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-09-26
IT is NEARING 1HE END.
Defense Opens in the Davis
Murder Case.
STORY OF THE KILLING
WHY DAVIS CLEANED OUT THE
BROCK GANG.
The Defendant Narrates the Circum-
stances on the Witness Stand-He
is Fully Corroborated BY the Tes-
timony of Frank Grant, an Eye
Witness-Other Court Matters.

II
Witness-Other Court Matters.
Provo. Sept. 25.-The trial of Captain
Davis on the charge of murder, was
proceeded with in the District court
yesterday after the mail closed with
Mr.. Jacobs, who acted as coroner al
the inquest, on the stand. He testified:
The verdict of the coroner's jury that
I signed was ''justifable homicide"
The timber that was piled up in front
of the house was hauled up from the
railroad and piled up promiscuously.
We buried the men a few rods east OF
the house the third day after the kill
ing, about 4 o'clock in the afternoon.
MuIer's and DucePS faces were powder
burned. Mr.. Davis dictated the coro-
ner's verdict. I heard the shooting;
was across the river, probably quar-
ter of a mile away. heard five orr six
shots. My testimony before was posi-
tive. If / testified there were six shots
in my former testimony, l thought that
was the case. 1 heard one shot differ
ent from the rest. 1t sounded like it
was smaller gun or inside of build
ing. I think it was the third shot
heard. The gun I found inside of the
cabin beside Mulers body had a
cartridge with a ball in it. I inserted
my finger in the barrel to ascertain If it
had been fired it had not been fired.
John H. Miller was next called. l
live in Salt Lake city; 1 lived in West
water in 1S90-'91-'92, and part of '9S; I
was there when Brock was killed; it
was in the latter part of August; L
know Davis, the defendant; 1 also know
Frank Grant. I saw them together af-
ter the killing; 1 had conversation
hon -o;I H. nod :
calibre pistol and I also had Al, but
thought it was not safe enough, SO took
a As" Davis said he told him that he
had had some trouble with Brock, who
had stolen some honey. Davis said he
told Brock if he would leave the coun-
try it would end. He had been exon
Grated, but was not satisfied, and was
going to give himself UP to the officers.
At the time of the former trial I re-
ceived an appointment as deputy mar
shall. Davis did not tel me that some
one had tempered with the 41-calibre
gun.
James Wells testified: I live near
Westwater; I know Davis, the defend
ant; am not acquainted with Brock;
was called on to help take care of the
bodies; 1 was also a member of the
coroner's jury, and examined Brooks
wound. There was a protuberance on
Brooks face under the eye. It looked
like ball. The ball entered the back
of the head, a little to the right, be-
tween the center of the back of the
head and the right ear.
Cross-examined: After we heard the
evidence, we deliberated and rendered
a verdict 1t was 'justifable homi-
eide" I signed the verdict The inquest
was held on August 20. I passed the
night before with the bodies.
The witness said certain person was
a brother-in-law of the defendant, and
was roasted by the attorneys for say
ing something without being asked to-
He was told TO answer questions only
and continued:
live one mile from Brooks 1 did
not hear the shooting Mr. Davis sent
for me. My gun was at the Brock
place. L found some honey there. 1t
was in a trunk in some small buckets.
/ found some more honey hidden across
the river. With this honey across the
river there was a lariat and a pair of
hobbies belonging to Mrs. Davis.
Albert Jacobson was next called. He
testified: | live in Westwater, and was
there at the time Brock was killed.
Think it was on Wednesday. I had a
with Davis, in which he
said some one had been robbing him of
honey, ropes and brides. I said to
him, What's the matter with your
dogs? He said he would like to Dor
row one of my guns. I went and got
the gun for him. 1t was a 45-calibre
Colts.
Walter Champlain testified: live in
Westwater, and know Davis I knew
Brock, but did not know Drucel nor
Muller. | saw Brock lying near the rail-
road track after he was shot, and noted
a hole in the back of his head. There
was a small bunch under one eye.
Cross-examined: On the, former trial
had on Brooks boots.
The witness stated he bought the
boots at the sale, but afterwards
his answer, as the sale was
not had until after the trial.
The court here adjourned I'M
til today at 10 a. m. when
Jacobsen was recalled and tes-
titled, the defense wishing to show that
Brock had built the dugout for forth
fication. The shots 1 heard were oppo-
site me; three or four were nred in
quick succession. Then there was
little time between these and the last
two shots; the last two shots were in
the direction of where Brooks body
was found. 1 did not testify that mt
my finger in the gun the length of INV
finger nail. 1 said I put my finger in
TO the gun one-half the length of the
finger nail.
and the defense explained their case to
the jury at some length, stating they
would prove that Ducel. a few DAVIS
previous to the shooting, came to Da-
vis's house and asked Mrs. Davis If
captain Davis had a pistol that was
put of order, stating that he was a gun
smith and could fix the gum Mrs. Da-
Wis handed him the gun Ducel took it
and went to the wood pile. It after
wards transpired that Ducel had tam
pered with the gun, and fixed it so it
would not stand cooked nor explode
cartridge. Supposed it was done in an
ticipation of trouble.
z. III. Hallet had heard Brock. Ducel
ana Muller say they would kill Davis.
one of them had said they would beat
him to death with a club.
The subpoena. was read, as returned.
and offered as evidence that Frank
Grant was not within the jurisdiction
of the court, and the defense asked
that Mr.. Grants former testimony be
now used. The prosecution objected to
this, but the objection was overruled.
John Pike was called to certify to the
copy as introduced in evidence, as that
given by Mr.. Grant at the former
trial, and testified: THAT is the tran
script which furnished to the defense.
1t is the evidence of Mr.. Grant. as TAX
en- by me at the former trial of Captain
Davis"
Witness was asked if the other evil
true, as taken by him, and answered.
YES"
The defence here offered the evidence
as taken at the former trial, as evil
ience
The evidence was read by ATTORNEY