The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1897-12-28
TIP OF HIS FINGER GONE
Pitts Says Reese Got It Into His
Mouth and Bit It Off.
REESE SAYS HE DIDN'T
The Two Were Fighting in a Hardware
store and Reese Thinks Pitts Struck
His Finger Against a Saw
and Sawed 1t OFF.

Was Pitts finger bitten OFF or sawed
off? That was the problem which kept
Justice Laurandeaus court busy yes
terday afternoon. w. A. Pitts appeared
in court with left hand the tip of one
OF the fingers of which was missing
He accused Fred G. Reese, another en-
pleye OF the Butte Hardware company,
of having bitten il on, and Reese was
on trial yesterday charged With may
hem. The story told by Pitts was that
he had been put to WORK temporarily BY
Mr.. Rochester OF the Butte Hardware
company, at collecting bills. Reese was
bookkeeper at the store and when he
went into the office on the morning of
the trouble Reese accused him Of mon
keying with his books. The witness
CANNED he had not touched the books
and they got quarreling.
Reese said il PITTS WAS looking for a
scrap he would give him one, and they
clinched. After scuffitng in the office
wnle, they separated. Pitts went out
OF the office and mad nearly reached the
door of the store, when IL occurred to
him that ne had gotten the worst OF the
fracas and he started back, calling To
reese to come outside ii he wanted To
fight. Reese came out into the body OF
thc store and they Went at IL again hou
and heavy. PITTS testified that he had
his LETT hand on keese's throat when
Reese caught one of his fingers in his
mouth ana bit it clean off. The bone
was not penetrated just the tip of the
finger beng bitten OFF about half way
down the nail. A glove was introduced
in evidence which Pitts claimed he
wore on his left hand during the scrap.
The tip Of one Of the fingers of the
glove was bloody but not cut or torn.
Drs. McGarvin ana Norcross testified
to dressing the wound. DR. Norcross
4 said that ne took the tip of the finger
i out OF the glove by means of foreeps.
i For the deTense the four witnesses of
i the ARRAY testified and all testified i'll
i favor OF Reese. They are all fellow
! employees in Inc store. and they said
! that Pitts was the aggressof all
] through. lie wanted to fight, and was
! cut to lick Reese. None Of them saw
j the finger biting incident. All testified.
4 however, that there was rack Of saws,
/ handsaws, bucksaws, circular saws,
cross-cut saws and saws not TO be mon
keyed with. right by where the fight
/ was in progress, ana that the combat
I ants frequently pushed each other up
/ against this rack OF saws. There were
! also chiseis ana other edged tools. The
1 witnesses for the defense said that Pitts
did not have gloves on
Reese himself went ON the stand and
denied that he bit Pitts finger or had
it in his mouth al all He Testified to
being pushed up against the rack of
saws several lililtS. Tie ufu MOI hHoN
that Reese had lost his finger by means
| OF a saw. but he had cut his hand on
enc OF the saws in the struggle.
c. T. Connolly, who represented the
prosecution, argued that Il saw could
nol have cut off the finger without cut
ting as Well through the glove which
enclosed 1t. To cur the flesh without
cutting the glove it would be necessary
to have two surfaces instead of the sim
gle surface of saw. He said IL was
Immaterial who started the quarrel, or
who was the aggressor i'll the fight.
Reese had testified that he was not at
any time afraid of PITTS, and accord
ingly there was no excuse for eanni-
baiism.
NJ. ID. Leehey. attorney for the de-
PENDANT. said that the court must first
Of all be absolutely satisfied that an of
Tense had been committed and he
claimed that no offense had been com
mitted The state had only the lesti-
mony of the complainant himself, and
he was contradicted in all the points OF
his story by everyone of those who wit
messed the affair and who separated
the combatants. He argued that In any
case there was no mayhem as the com
plainant has not been disfigufed or Grip
pied. The nail would grow on again
! and cover the wound.
/ Justice Iaurandeau considered there
was probable cause for thinking Reese
guilty and held him To the district eonrl
under bonds OF $500