The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1895-08-16
The uieta Hai1y gayle griaay moriug sneus 1895.

made on account of Thomas mellow
aUs testimony on account Of its length
| mess (By DefendanO Then the atten-
| ton of the court was called to some
| Points of his testimony then cross ex-
| animation by the Defendant. Thomas
| Mcdowell stated to the court that he
Gid not see any of the shooting. After
| that court adjourned for few minutes
| recess, TO commence again Court com
menced again and Charles ]. Strick-
| land was called on the Witness Stand
Prosecuting Witness talked quite lot
| about Rebuttal. Then after that the
| Prosecuting Witness Of the Territory
Rested
| Then Defendant stated to the court
that as the Prosecuting Witness ala
not prove Charge, he had no cause 10
produce any witnesses as il could De
seen that Complaint and Evidence ola
not cooperate or harmonic. AS COM
plant and evidence differ from each
other That Prosecuting witness III
Complaint charges Defendant directly.
which was not proved by Evidence ana
as the Prosecuting had rested (or Clos
ed he had the right to close 10 near
the Decision Of the Court. Then Re
marks from the other side. then from
the other.-Court looking up in the law
books for references how to proceed IN
this cause and for questions put by
both Court adjourned for few MIN
utes recess. Court commenced again,
Looking up points in Statute--botn
parties agreed to Hear the Decision or
the Court )-Court 9boked in the matter
of the Information (ComplainD and
Evidence Statements, after that did de-
eide as following, to wit; Courts flnd-
ing: Upon looking Complaint and eVi-
dence CStatements) Chat we had so far)
Found that as it appears to me the
Evidence did not show or prove the
facts as set forth in the Complaint SUI
ficiert. as it appears to the Court the
Evidence is insufficient and verifying
from the facts as set forth in Complaint
and therefore the case IL dismissed ana
costs taxed against Prosecuting Wit
ness and Defendant is discharged and
Prosecuting Witness Thomas Mellow
ell agreed to give a Written Undertak-
ing This is in accordance with Section
AZ Chan Il. Page 206 Procedure Grim
inal. Session Laws Of Oklahom 1890
Evidence of this case Ctaken in form Of
Deposition or in other words) written
down on piece of Paper by the Clerk
of the Court Prosecuting Witness
wanted TO go. Talked about getting
bondsman Che would come back after
little bib ITO write out paper. inquired
about how much cost would be and left.
Written Undertaking turned in the
hands Of Deputy Constable to take Sig
natures thereof (from Prosecuting Wit
ness and his suretieS) for costs of this
case. to be approved (by Justice) il
good and sufficient or others made out
instead thereof till good or paid or sat
isfied legally so ordered by the court in
Morning of July 26th, 1895.
Court Closed.
Matthias Chosen. ]. p.
The above IS a true copie of the Pro-
ceedings in the Cause of the Territory
of Oklahoma VS. Horace r. Pierson as
they appear on my Docket to the best
of my knowledge and ability. The cost
being not figured up yet on account of
Deputy Constables Bills which | can
not understand very well, Therefore
past poned TO some other time.
Matthias Chosen ]. 2.