The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1896-05-23
4 E1CKINTON TRIAL.
Mandan Pioneer.

1t ia undorbedl, 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 discou, age such stealing and killing.
But there is a reverse side to the prac-
tice, which has just been seen in q trial
held at 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 70 be-
long't Pierre Wibaux. The testimony OF
the prosecution was to the effect that or
a certain day last January. Mr.. Merrill
went onto the range n short distance from
his house, and there shot, skinned and cut
up a COW belonging to Picrre Wibaux.
and branded with Mr.. Wibnux's brand
Two, witnesses. both Mt that time in the
employ of Mr.. Merrill, testified to going
out to the spot where The COW had been
killed. they having been sent by Mr.. Mer-
rill to bring in the beef. They testified
ed with the Wibau1 brand. A great mass
of evidence was introduced on collateral
matters. pointing to the conclusion that
Mr.. Merrill was guilty of the crime
charged.
The defense was that the animal killed
was not n Wibaux animal. hut was n helf-
er belonging to Mr.. Merrill himself; that
the hide which he took off the animal he
killed was not the hide produced in court.
marked W bar. bnt was q hide marked T.
O-the brand Of Mr.. Merrill; that the
chief witnesses for the prosecution were
Young men who hsd set out to earn the
5000 reward offered by Mr.. Wlbaux, and
that in pursuance of this object. they
had themselves killed a Wibaux COW, and
animal that Mr.. Merrill had killed. AS a
sample of the evidence for the defense
may be given that one Kenzie. who was
i'll Merril's employ and who stated that
he went to the spot where the beef lay
between the time Of tho animal being
killed. and it's being hauled away by the
prosecuting witnesses, and he looked at
the hide, and saw thereon the brand of Mr.
~ Merrill. The evidence for the defense
. was, without giving any further details
here, so conclusive, that the jury did no
r take very long in arriving at n conclusion
in regard to it, and their verdict was no
guilty.
Mr.. Merrill is n man Of some little prop
erty-a man of good appearance, intelli
gent, cducated and not the kind of II ma,
that is ordinarily found stealing cattle on,
= at a time. The very general impression
of the people of Dickinson who heard tn
case, was that he was the victim of a plo
put up by witnesses who testified ag;ins
him. The public denunciation did no
: of course, extend to the officers of til
good faith, believing until the evidenc
for the defense came In. that ahey had
good case against the defendant and be
lieving that, did their duty. Inc peopl
of Dickinson and Stark county general,
:, are not as a rule merciful to cattle theive
On the other hand, they arc usually ver
. ready to find them guilty when once a cas-
is presented to them. But in this Cas-
Mr.. Merrill clearly was the victim of Ut
toward circumstances, md he has bee
put to a good deal of trouble, eXpens
and worry by a scheme set in motion h
men who some people think, ought to b
in the penitentiary for perjury, if :.
nothing else.