The Anaconda standard., 1898-01-19
ANACONDA NEWS.
VERDICT OF ACQU|TTAL
j. B. Gnose Found Not Guilty by
Jury.
-
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
The Court Advises the Jurors to Return
Verdict for the Defense-Defend-
- ants Introduce No Testimony.
- The Judges Remarks.


I'VE, the jury in the above entitled
case, find the defendant not guilty"
!. These words, as they fell from the
lips of Clerk Morony in the district
court yesterday afternoon, caused
smile Of satisfaction TO pass over the
features of James b. Gnose. His
friends in the court room heaved deep
sigh of relief and there was an attempt
or two at applause, but the applauders
perhaps remembered that Judge Brant-
iy had passed through couple of Try
ing situations during the past two
days, and the hand-clappinS was
changed into Misunderstanding.
The trial of the case was begun on
Monday afternoon at O'Clock, and II
had been expected that great deal
OF time would be consumed Dy IL. But
those guessed wrong who thought So
In the first place 1t had been thought
that nearly an entire day would be
taken up in the selection OF jury, but
this work was completed in an nour.
In the second place il had been thought
that the direct and cross s-examinatlon
of Clark Scott Galbraith would take UP
hours, whereas Clark Scott Galbraitn
refused point blank to testify at ali.
even in spite of the. fact that the court
directed him to do so. In the third
tense would introduce long strings of
testimony, but there was no evidence
put forth by them at all.
During the course of his remarks
in sustaining the defense'S motion to
instruct the jury to acquit, Judge
Brantly took occasion to crluicise in no
gentle manner the private detectives
who permitted themselves to become
parties and accomplices of the real
thieves in stealing the articles from the
Copper City Commercial company, and
said that he considered them equally
guilty with the robbers themselves.
When court convened at 9:30 o'clock
yesterday morning Judge Brantly an
nounced that he had come to the con-
clusion that Scott Galbraith should tes-
tify in the case. There was provision
in the laws of the state that provided
that where a witness testified to GER
tain facts the evidence could not be
used against the witness in a succeed
ing trial, and upon this provision the
court based his determination to have
Galbraith testify. Judge Mcconnell.
who was associate counsel for the de-
fenSe, arose to make an objection to the
courts ruling, stating that the law did
not apply to such cases as the one at
present on trial Mr.. Trippet, the lead
ing attorney for the state, objected to
Mcconnell making Any remarks, and
said that if ii were necessary for Gal
braith to be defended in the matter
that it should be done by Mr. English,
his attorney, and not by the attorney
for the defendant now on trial.
Galbraith was then put upon the wit
ness stand. The first question asked
tialbraith was whether or not he knew
j. b. Gnose.
II refuse to answer the question"
said sGalbraith.
He refused to answer successfully
the questions whether or not he re-
membered hauling some sugar to the
store of Wills & Gnose on the 22d day
OF last September: about his transac-
tion in the sugar deal in connection
with w. H. Dorr, and other questions.
When asked if he remembered having
given testimony at a preliminary hear
mig. he said he believed he did. The
state asked that Stenographer r.. w.
Wanzer who took the testimony at
the preliminary hearing, be called to
prove that Galbraith did give testi
mony at that time but the defense OBJ
jected and the objection was sustained.
Mr.. Mcconnell asked that the records
be made to show that Galbraith was
being made to testify to matters that
might incrminate himself.
Z The state proceeded with its ques-
tions. but Galbraith refused to answer
any of them and Mr.. Trippet began
asking him about certain evidence that
had been brought out i'm the prelimi-
nary trial and copy of which Mr..
Trippet had before him. The state
finally got out of patience and said
that Galbraith might go. The court
said that about the only thing he could
do was to order Galbraith committed to
Jail for contempt. and this was done.
The court instructed the sheriff to
hereafter confine Galbraith in the
county Jail and not in the city Jail.
Gabraith was then taken back to jail.
AS he has been in Jail since October.
with good chances for remaining there
some time longer, it would appear TO
make but little difference to him
whether he was confined in Jail for
contempt of court or for any other Of
fense.
The state then called William H.
Dorr. He said he was stable boss for
the Copper City Commercial company
He repeated the evidence he had given
at the preliminary examination, to the
effect that he had seen Galbraith load
upon his wagon 60 sacks of sugar from
a car standing upon the railroad
tracks on Sept. % last. When Gal
braith had loaded his sugar, Dorr7 met
him coming down town and climbed
into the wagon and took a seat beside
him. They stopped at the company's $
store a short time and then proceeded
down Commercial avenue until they
reached Cedar street, where they got
off the truck and went into a saloon on
the corner of Commercial avenue and
Cedar street and had a drink. After
taking the drink they went on down
to Carroll. where the Copper City Com
mercial company operates a branch
store
Upon reaching a certain pile of Stag
down near the works, they threw off
10 sacks of the sugar and while Gal