The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1896-05-23
~HicKiNTuN TRIAL.
Mla,!:,il Pioneer

iilndln Pioneer.
1t is undoubedl, true that the practice
of offering a reward by large stockman
for the conviction of persons found guilty
of stealing or killing their cattle, tends
to discourage such stealing and killing.
But there is a reverse side to the prac-
tice, which has just been seen in q trial
held NJ Dickinson, in which over n week
was consumed. Horace f. Merrill, who
lives almost on the border line between
North Dakota and Montana, near the Vel.
lowstone river in Alfred county, has been
tried for illegally killing a COW said 20 be-
long to Pierre Wibaux. The testimony of
the prosecution was to the effect that on
u certain day last January. Mr.. Merrill
went onto the range n short distance from
his house. and there shot, skinned md cut
up n COW belonging to Pierre Wibaux,
and branded with MIR. Wibaux's brand
Two witnesses. both Mt that timo in the
employ of MIR. Merrill. testified to going
ont to the spot whore the COW had been
killed. they having been sent by Mr.. Mer-
rill to bring in the beef. They testified
that the hide. which was there, was brand
ed with the Wibaux brand. A great mass
Of evidence was introduced on collateral
matters, pointing to *he conclusion that
Mr.. Merrill was guilty Of the crime
charged.
The defense was that tho animal killed
was not Il Wibaux animal. but was A. helf-
er belonging to s1r. Merrill himself: that
the hide which ho took of the. animal he
killed was not the hide produced in court.
marked W bar, but was a hide marked L
O-the brand of Mr.. Merrill; that the
chief witnesses for tho prosecution were
Young men who hsd set out to earn the
$500 reward offered by Mr.. Wlbaux, and
that in pursuance of this object, they
had themselves killed n Wibaux COW. and
substituted Its hide for the hide of the
animal that Mr.. Merrill had killed. AS a
sample Of the evidence for the defense
may be given that one Kenzie, who was
in Merrifs employ and who stated that
no went to the spot where the beef lay,
batween the time of the animal being
killed, and its being hauled away by the
prosecuting witnesses, and he looked ut
the bide, and saw thereon the brand of Mr..
I Merrill. The evidence for the defense
was. without giving any further details
here. so conclusive, that the Jury did not
take very long in arriving at a conclusion
in regard to it, and their verdict was not
guilty.
Mr.. Merrill ia a man of some little prop.
erty-a man of good appearance, intelli-
gent, educated and not the kind of a man
TINT is ordinarily found stealing cattle one
at n time. The very general IL Impression
of the people of Dickinson who heard the
case. was that he was the victim Of a plot
put up by witnesses who testified against
him. The public denunciation did not
Of course, extend to the officers Of the
State who prosecuted. They acted in
good faith, believing until the evidence
for tho defense came Ill. that they had a
good case against the defendant and be
lieying that, did their duty. The people
of Dickinson and Stark county generally
are not as Il ruic merc;fnl to cattle thieves
On the other hand, they are usually very
ready to find them guilty when once a case
is presented to them. But in this case
Mr.. Merrill clearly was the victim Of un
toward circumstances, and he has beer
put to a good deal of trouble, expense
and worry by Il scheme set in motion by
men who some people think, ought to be
in tho peniten'iary for perjury, if sol
nothing else.