The Corvallis gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Or.) 1862-1899, 1895-11-21
D0lNGS OF TWO JURIES.
One Fails to Agree-The Other
Finds a Verdict of Guilty.

The trial to which the most attention has
been directed at this term of court was that
of Max Friendly under an indictment for an
/, assault with a dangerous weapon with intent
to kill. committed on the 9th Of last June,
up IN John Long. Readers will Der
the facts of this shooting, details of which
a .,peared in the GAZETTs at the time of the
occurrence, and the facts then published
were substantially what was testified to on
the stand.
The regular panel Of jurymen was exhaus-
ted and ten men from q special venire ex-
amined before twelve men were accepted.
g so. NJ. Brown, district attorney. was as
sisted by Judge Huford in the prosecution.
and Lawyers McFadden and Bryson repre-
scnted the defendant. The facts sought to
be proved by the defense were: First, that
Long and Friendly had become involved in
a quarrel and in the scuffle that followed,
Friendly had drawn his revolver in self de-
Tense, then III the struggle for the gun it was
discharged, striking Long; and second, that
financial troubles, in which Long had been
in >trumental in advancing, had induced a
temporary insanity.
: The principal witness introduced by the
prosecution was John Long.
J. A. Deadmond swore that about five days
previous to the affray, Friendly had declared
he would shoot Long. None of the wit
nesses had seen the encounter when it began
and there was difference of testimony as t.,
whether the men were on their feet, or had
fallen to tho ground in the scutfie, before the
shot was fired.
F. u Shersgrecn proved good witness for
the defense, on the subject of defendants
sanity. He related several instances which
occurred previous to June 6, that convrt-
ed him Of Friendy's unsoundness of mind.
One of the jurors took a hand in the ex-
animation, and to answer his question DR..
Altman, who attended Friendly in Jail after
the shooting, stated that he did not think
man, sane before the affray, would have act
ell as the accused did afterward. In all,
twenty-three witnesses were examined.
The jury retired on Saturday afternoon
and after being out "a hours returned that
that were unable to agree, and were dis
charged. 1t is understood that two stood for
conviction as charged, four were for acquttal
and the remainder favored finding a verdict
for some lesser crime. AT one time they had
practically reached an agreement and came
into court asking what was the penalty. Thy
were instructed that this did not concern
them and they again retired.
In conversation with one of the jurymen
after the jury had been discharged, a GA
! zErTE representative learned that on tile
first two ballots two jurymen voted "guiitv
as charged" but after that they voted for
assault with dangerous weapon" The
jury seemed possessed of the idea that they
! were not only to find verdict from the evil
dencc, but also to pass sentence. On one
ballot they stood six for simple assault, with
the highest penalty, and six for assault with
a dangerous weapon, with the lowest penalty.
| Then again, the ballot resulted in nine for
! assault with dangerous weapon, providing
j on the part of three Of them that the penalty
should be only fine. Throughout their de-
liber atoms there appeared to be a determine
ton On the part of majority of the jury to
prevent the defendant from being sentenced
to the pentcntiary.
The juryman who gave the above infor-
nation remarked that had the court sent tn
jury back for further deliberation they would
have arrived at verdict. He further stated
that there was disposition manifested on
the part of a majority of the jury to sing
psalms and tell dirty stories instead of delib.
Grating on the case. He thought they failed
to realize tho seriousness of the matter and
they entirely forgot the immense bill OF er-
pensc they were pilingup for the taxpayers
to li9uidate. He believed that the cour
should have placed the jury on bread and
water, which weald doubtless have had the
effect Of speedily bringing them to a realiz
ing sense of their duty. Had some sort of a
verdict been agreed upon, the expense of q
new trial would have been avoided.
| The case will not come up again until tile
April term Of court. The trial was unat
tended by the lawyers wianglss usually
characteristic of this class Of cases. From
tho time Of the shooting last June, pull Ii
sentiment and sympathy seemed will
Friendly, and on this accounta verdict OF
acquistal would not have met with very
much censure. However, as it is the jury
is blamed for not compromising their differ
ences i'll order to prevent farther expense.
THE SCOTT CASE.
The attention of the court was taken II,
Monday in hearing the Scott case. The reg
ular panel of jurymen was exhausted befor,
the jury was selected, and several Of the l:
men who tried the case were chosen from
special venire. The jury was composed o
the following persons: Geo. r. Hall, D. NJ
Bartlett. John Sehuldt, 6. K. Taylor, j. II
Edward, Chas, W. Hodes, A. j. Hall, A
M. Maxtield, j. D. Hullill, J. E. Cronk, Jo
seph Hector, NJ. T. Lindsey. Ge,:. NJ
Brown, the district attorney, repr asented the
state, and w. $. MeFadden and John Ke
say appeared for the defendant.
Tie theory Of the state was that Scot
malciously, purposely and premeditatedly
assaulted Officer McLagan with dangerou.
weapon with intent to kill. The defense or
the other hand attempted to show that Scot
was acting in sell defense and was justified
in making the assault.
| 6nI ~, 81