The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-01-26
ONE YEAR FOR BROWN
Such Is the Conclusion of the Young
Mans Second Trial.
THE HISTORY OF THE CASE
His Mother. Who Expected a YER
dict OF Aoquittal. Was Pain
fully Disappointed and
Wept Bitterly.
Special Correspondence Of the Standard.


been ON trial here since Tuesday before
Jury. 1t is the second trial of the
case of the state against Charles A.
Brown. a former jury at the November
term of court having returned YER
dict finding him guilty of assault with
intent to commit murder after SO hours
deliberation His counsel, however.
succeeded in obtaining a new trial for
the boy. and 1T was set down for the
beginning of this term of court.
= 1t will be remembered that this case
arose from the shooting of Homer H.
Hamilton by Charlie Brown, on his
fathers ranch, a few miles above the
city of Anaconda, on the 14uh day OF
last March. Hamilton had entered in
Ito a contract with Frank @. Brown, by
sthe terms of which Hamilton was to be
allowed the privilege of crossing the
Brown ranch for the purpose of cutting
all the dry timber on the hillside south
of the ranch. Things ran along smooth
ly until THE 18th day of March, when
old man Brown went to the timber
where Hamilton's men We're at work.
He ordered them off his place, claim
ing that he had not given Hamilton
amy right TO cut timber on his land. He
came again next day and was reinforc-
ed by his 16-year-old son, Charlie. Hos
tilities were renewed, and the shooting
took place.
were Frank G.. Brown, N. p. Peterson.
William Jensen and Andrew Anderson,
the latter three men being in Hamil-
tons employ at the time. They all tes-
titled at the preliminary hearing held
in Anaconda, but when the case reach
ed the district court at the November
term Peterson. who was a witness for
the state, could not be found. The
county attorney charged in open court
at this trial that Peterson was spirited
dQfnnCa A small
averted by the speedy interference OF
the court. The charges were with
drawn, apologies made and Peterson's
name was forgotten during the rest OF
the trial.
When the case was called up last
Wednesday, w. B. Rodgers, counsel for
the defendant, read the affidavit OF
Charles A. Brown, upon which he bas-
ed a motion for a continuance OF the
case In 1T the county attorney was
charged with having wilfully neglected
to produce this man Peterson, who was
an eyewitness to the shooting, to testify
in the trial just commenced and that,
although he had a process issued re-
quirsng his attendance, that he never
intended 1t to be served for the reason
that Peterson's testimony would dis
credit the testimony of Jensen and An
derson, two witnesses for the state.
When the reading of the affidavit was
concluded, the county attorney, full of
Indignation, replied vehemently that
not one of the charges were true; that
they were all rot. He then filed sew
eral affidavits with the court showing
the efforts that were put forth to find
1.-The missing witness by the sheriffs off,
GERS of Deer Lodge, Silver Bow and
jefferson counties. The court, after ex-
amining the affidavits on file, overruled
the motion for a continuance and on
dered the trial to proceed.
The next sensation developed when |
some of the witnesses disclosed the |
fact that they had been approached by |
the complaining witness Hamilton, for |
the purpose of seeing Brown and get |
ting him to settle the case for a money |
consideration. The court here repri- |
manded the witnesses and observed |
that II any evidence was introduced |
tending to show that attempts were |
made to settle a felony out of court |
the guilty parties would be severely |
dealt with. The witnesses after this |
were a little more cautious and re-
Trained at least from giving any testi-
mony that would incriminate them
selves.
The jury were selected with the
greatest care and are composed of the |
following men: Thomas Devine, r.
Sale. John McGreevey. Ray Richards,
Arthur Rippengale. L. st. Jean, ST.,
John Hoeft, John Sullivan, q. d. Spen-
Ger. ]. T. Roseborough. A. J. Calcott
and ]. G. Foster.
The testimony of the defendants wit
nesses went to show that the shooting
was done in self-defense and that
Hamilton was a trespasser on the
Brown ranch when the trouble oc-
CURED. This was contradicted by
Hamilton, who testified that he was
shot without any provocation what
ever. The arguments to the Jury &C.
cupied all of the morning session and |
one hour in the afternoon. The courts
charge was regarded as being very fair
and leaning somewhat towards the in
nocence of the defendant.
The case went to the jury at O'Clock
and at l o'clock the jury filed into the
court room, having reached a verdict
The defendant was present and sat
beside his mother, who had for four
days sat in the court room during the
progress of the trial and anxiously
watched the proceedings against her
boy. Breathless silence prevailed while
the clerk read the verdict, which found
the defendant guilty of the crime
charged and fixing his punishment at
one year in the penitentiary. The poor
mother, who so fondly expected an ac-
quittal did not realize the import OF
the cruel words for a few moments and
raising her hands quickly to her fore
head as If dazed, she looked straight at
the jury and then at the court. Their
solemn faces soon convinced her that
IL was true and, overcome by the terri
BILE strain. she gave vent to her feel
ings in bitter tears. The jury were
polled and all answered that this was
their verdict Colonel OLeary imme-
diately asked the court TO fix the time
for passing sentence, to allow them
sufficient time 10 prepare a statement |
on motion for a new trial Charlie |
Brown was in the meantime remanded
10 the custody of the sheriff.
6hureh Notice..
Presbyterian Church-On Main street !
between Third and Fourth. George |
Wade Healy. pastor. Services to-day as
fnlLANI-G. II .a.cla..L- l