The Coeur d'Alene press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1892-1907, 1895-03-30
4 SIxGArIoHAL CASE On TRIAL.
The xsrehsvsl. Bsshtsl AaAir Called fsss.
dav.

/
charge OF battery claimed TO have been
committed on the person Of Mrs. Nan.
ME kercbeval, now Mrs. w. J. Mcclure,
while attempting to arrest her one day
last fall on warrant sworn out as q
result OF her arbitrary action In break
Ing open the pound for the purpose Of
releasing her stock. was called In the
district court at liathdrum, last Tues
day. The history OF the case IL famil-
lar TO most OF our readers.
The forenoon was occupied In secur.
ing q jury, and when court was called
ut 2 p. m. all the parties were in court.
Jsechtei IL represented by Il. Il. McFar-
land aud James A. Keat of Ceur d..
Alene. and District Attorney Bssle is
assisted by Judge Prank Ganahi ofSpo-
kane.
The first witness called was Mrs. Nc
CluFe. who swOre that on November 8,
1884. she, In company with her daugh-
ter. Miss Mamie kercheval, were Just
leaving certain store In Ceur d'Aleue
when. without word of warning. she
was seized from behind by the defend
ant Bechtel aud after brief struggle,
In which her clothing was disarranged,
she was by the defendant thrown vio-
ientiy to the ground. She was then
carried and dragged to the middle Of the
street, with the assistance of another
man whom defendant had called. Other
assistance was given him here and the
woman WAS partly dragged, partly car.
ried up flight of stairs to the ONCE OF
= justice Of the peace. Here she was
thrown violently against window
ledge aud then thrust roughly into a
chair. As q result of this treatment
witness swore that she was badly
bruised about the arms, shoulders aud
hips. from the effects Of which she has
not yet fully recovered. She also sus-
tanned other injuries of n private ma,
ture which has nee-ssitated medical
treatment FIVE days out Of every eight
sipre.
q. ". iiechtei. the defendant, was the
fin, witness called by the defense. To
the Brst question asked, were you an
Officer OH November .. 1894 2" the state
objected. and after considerable discus
sion the state admitted that they would
attempt 10 show that defendant was not
All officer. This brought out the county
records, which show that Bechtel WIS a
regularly appointed constable. stii the
state coniended that his appointment
was, under the statutes. illegal and that
therefore lac had no right 10 act. Some
time was taken up by this argument
and the court finally took recess TO
"Wednesday IN oider 10 advise and look
up authorities.
The cross examination brought out
that defendant, acted according 10 Law
Ia arrrsiing MS. kercheval; tina, he
had warrant for her and had carried
same for dyc months. and did no; serve
same SOONER because Ia. woman had
threatened 10 shoot him IL lac attempted
10 do 30; tina, she MAS dangerous NO.
man and he used every means 10 avoid
trouble. only rosoriing 90 force when /,
became necessary.
"Wednesday was a day Of technically.
clubbing aud stormy argument; In the
case. Both s!des Tough, the ground
inch by inch.
When court convened al 10 o'clock
The argument on the point raised by
the state as TO the legality Of defendants |
appointment ms constable was resumed.
and continued hot until noon. when the
court took recess until ~, a; which |
time the attorneys. having concluded. |
The cour, rendered its decision:
Though much argument. backed by
auiboriticS together with evidence
irregularities In the appoint |
mcnt Of llcchiel as constable were adj
sancci, Judge Mayhem held tina, as
such officer he acted In good faith. That
having been no appointed by the county
upon a petition from |
Of Occur d'Alene precinct, and |
having filed his official bond ia accord. |
'ncc with law. the appointment was
cgal. The court held that notwi,h.
standing that there may have been ir.
both before and after
defendants appointment. he was an
officer de fac,o. and ms the authorities
20 10 the extent that IL he had in his
legal warrant for the arrest
II the prosecuting witness. that IL was
not the RICH, OF the prosecuting witness
20 resist the arrest of the officer on the
ground that he was no, an officer de
urc. and that the main authorities Go
10 show that he had right, AS officer,
10 make that arrest.
Another fine legal point came up as
% whether a warrant simply charging
misdcmeanor was regular ON its face.
Judge Mayhem held that the warrant
,self did not set forth any offcnse or
rhine at all.
Late in the afternoon the defense At.
emptcd to introduce the complaint up.
IN which the warrant for Mrs. Kerchc-
rails arrest was issued. To this the
tate objected. and after some argu.
nent court adjourned in order to give
defendant time TO procure additional
evidence showing that an ordinance OF
he town Of Occur d'Alens had been
rs charged In the complaint, as
{ could not be found that an offense
had been committed under the statutes.
Legal objection sought 10 he Intro.