Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1895-12-20

erson lying in the corral on the morning
of the 81, when Severson was killed: all
of these things, MI. Miller said, were
the bloody footprints of Wadsworth
along the trail Of crime, and were con
sistent only with the theory Of his guilt;
Wadsworth's statement to Young that
ED didn't suffer much was another
how did he know this? Mr.. Miller held
it to be one of those statements made
under the spell of crime and for no other
reason. The whole testimony of Wads-
worth was gone over and analysed, Mr..
Miller pointing out wherein he said
they corroborated the statements of
Roehm that Wadsworth was concerned
in the crime. 1t was an eloquent and
powerful presentation of the case as
argued by the state, and the review of
Mr.. Wadsworth's testimony was just
finished as court adjourned at noon.
This afternoon, Mr.. Miller took up
the evidence of the witnesses Eaton,
Young and Deitz in turn, and analysed
it, pointing out whathe held to be proof
of the guilt of the defendant. He was
continuing his argument at press time.
TUESDAY.
Mr.. Miller finished his argument yes
terday afternoon at 4:3O and court adj
journed to Z p. III.
At that hour, Mr.. Boucher opened
for the defense. In his remarks he in
sisted that Mr.. Miller had reflected upon
juries in Burleigh county and that the
reflection was u~nwarranted. In the
past, in this county, there had been
convictions where there should be con-
victions, and he believed that this jury
would do their full duty. He claimed
that the evidence showed no trouble
between the defendant and Severson,
but it did show trouble between the boy
Roehm and Severson. The boy Roehm
was a bad boy-just the kind of a boy
that would be capable Of murder. The
whole story of Roehm was ridiculous,
the attorney for 1.-THE state might claim
that Wadsworthwas a rascal, and a red
handed assassin, but nobody claimed
that he was a fool. And yet no man but
the biggest fool would go to a boy such
as Roehm and try to get him to kill Sew
erson. Roehm was a liar, a s%elf-con-
fessed perjurer, a burglar and a MUIR
derer. Perhaps the defendant had done
things which members of the jury would
never have done, but the state had
charged him with doing things that no
sane man would have done. One strange
thing was, that according to the boys
own story no definite arrangements were
made-whether Severson was to be
killed with a club, Or shot or poisoned,
prior to a few minutes before the shoot
ing. No arrangement was made as to
how Wadsworth and the boy would get
to the barn ahead of Severson. The
boy had committed the murder, and then
planned to tell a story that would impli-
cate the defendant.
Mr.. Boucher admitted that probably
the shot was fired from the spot claimed
by the boy. It could have been a com
paratively easy matter for him to drag
the body from the stable door to the
place where it was found in the corral.
The speaker insisted that the boy had
told the truth in his cross examination
when he said that Mrs. Wadsworth
asked at the breakfast table, ''where is
Ed?" The story that all of them went
to the corral was inconsistent with the
boys story. If the boys story Of con.
spiracy is true, why should all of them
| go? Why not the boy alone? If the
! Wadsworths had known at the break.
fast table that Stevenson was lying deac
with a bullet hole through him, as the
boys story claimed, their course .woulc
have been far different from that which
it actually was. If Mr.. Wadsworth hac
been guilty he would not have spread al
along the Little Missouri river the fac
that Severson was lying dead in hi
corral; there would have been an at
tempt to hide the crime. Only a crazy
insane, foolish man would do what thu
state claims was done by the defendant
Court adjourned to $50 this morning
Mr.. Boucher resumed his argumen,
this morning, and began by stating two
points of law, which would be given the
jury by the court, first that the Law
presumed the defendant to be innocent
until proven guilty-second that he
could not be convicted of crime on the
uncorroborated testimony of an accom-
plice. He held that the evidence intro
duced had shown absolutely no corrob.
grafton Of the story toldby the boy. He
resumed his analysis of the testimony,
at the time Reed and Young came tc
the house. He commented on the man.
ner Of Young in testifying, and upon the
fact that he had admitted being un-
friendly to Wadsworth; he charac.
terized the two, one as a friend and the
other an enemy of Wadsworth; they had
- - 1o-,., oaJ 1z.1-a1 - c.--..--.-s