The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-12-27
SURPRISED 1t THE VERDICT.
Nelson's Friends Dissatisfed at
Outcome of the Trial.
THEY THINK coNNELlA GUILTY.
PSesecstion Fina Fault with H.
Ronala says Murder In the See.
esd Degree Was made Ost--TAe
Law - CnaerssoOa BY the Conrt
s.A Mr. Ronald - Variance

The accaltsal OF James ". Conneila. al
Sidney. kisap county. Saturday, OF the
murder Of Ole Nelson, caused much sur
prise among Nelson's friends Ia Everett.
where the killing toak place
Rumors were circulated 10 the effect that
ex-Mayor j.. T. Ronald. of Seattle. who
conducted TIE prosecution. attended ban
quet given by Connela. From reports
which reached Seattle II appeared that the
people Of Everett blamed Mr.. Ronald for
the failure TO convict
Mr. Ronald says that he made a fair.
honest fight. ard that he believes the evil
Gencs was sufficient to convict. He does
NOT blame the jury. II was. he believes.
composed OF honest. fair-rinied men. who
followed the instructions given them by
the Judge. The law as laid down by Judge
Reed. and the law as viewed by Mr. Ron
aid, Il widely at variance.
Banquet story Explained.
Mr.. Ronald was asked: did you receive
telephone message from Everett saying
that you were being blamed for the acquit-
tai Of Conneila. and asking you IL 1t were
true that You attended banquet given by
Connella at Sidney?'
"Yes" he replied.
'swhas il there in the banaue. staryr"
Absolutely nothing. / think I know
what that refers to- During the trial the
prosecution permitted DIR. Hathaway leave
OF absence TO visit the navy yard. In ap-
probation Of that courtesy he came 10
Prosecuting Attorneys Yakey, Mayor and
myself at adjournment Of court and In
vited us to his hotel to dinner that even
ing. telling us to De there at Z o'clock
We were few minutes late. but on ar
rival found the defendants counsel. Sheriff
. Curry. his deputy and the prisoner eating
We did not know until We arrived In the
dining room that DIR. Hathaway had invit-
ed any one besides ourselves. and / don't
know now whether the other people were
his guests or whether they paid for their
meals never spoke to the defendant du-
ring the dinner. nor he to me. Connela
and the sheriff we're dining at a separate
table. The rl1mor Of a banquet and toasts
Is fabrication The sheriff and his pris-
oner and the defendants counsel left the
hotel before we did They We're eating when
we went In. and our dinner lasted about if
teen minutes
"Can you see any reason for discomfort
at Everett at the result of the trials'
They have no reason to find fault with.
either Prosecuting Attorney Naylor orr
Yakey This case was fought. while
while absolutely fairly on our part, yet with
all the vigor that We could command. and
the failure TO convict cannot be charged to
the prosecution
.'You say that the failure to convict can
not he charged to the prosecution. Do YOU
attribute IL to the dishonesty OF the jury or
lack OF intelligence of the jury.'
II think the jury was honest and intel
ligent."
'.Do you attribute It 10 lack OF sufficient
evidence TO convicte'
mo. sir. think the evidence was SUM-
Gent
what kind OF witnesses did the prosecu-
tion haye?"
II newer prosecuted case In my life with
better witnesses generally. or who covered
the essential point more completely
ITO what do you attribute the acquit-
tale"
court
"wha. special instruction, If any. have
you reference tos"
wherein the Instruction War Wrong
81 think the instruction that did mos:
toward acauitting Connella was the one to
the efrec. that II the defendant. In the heat.
of anger or passion. approached Nelson and
addressed him In an insulting manner and
slapped his face thereby provoking Nell
son TO assault defendant. and during the
fight. Nesson ceased 10 use his fist. bu.
mate Use Of a cane eudangering the life
Of the defendant that defendant had a
right 20 kill Nelson TO prevent this DAN
ger although hls conduct at the COM
inencement, was reprehensibie ard wrong
full"
What fs the matter with that !nstruc-
ton s'
According 10 my understanding Of the
law ~ the defendant provoked the deceased
as described In the instruction. 10 assault
him, ard the deceased did assault him the
defendant being IN the wrong in provoking
the assault 80 long as he willingly contin-
ues in the fight no matter how sorely he
may he impressed. or aerceiy or dangerous
~ assaulted. he cannot evoke seif-defense''
''Dii you ask for such an instruction
from the court >"
I'VE asked the court 10 instruct TO the
effect that II the defendant; angrfly or in
the heat Of passion assaulted the deceased
by slsgsssng b3m in the face. thereby pro-
saklng an assault by the deceased on the
defendant. that long as defendant vol
unfairly remained in the conflict he wouli
nes he tusisfiabhe In killing. and that such
would he murder In the second degree or
maflsiaugh;sr."
ibid the defendan, assign any reason for
approaching Nelson?"
yes. SIR lie said that when ne saw
Nelson II occarresi 20 him fconneilae that
Nelson had ip-A1 slanaertng and lying
about him around town, ard the only rea-
sen he had fog approaching him was "a
mere curiosity TO what Nelson would
say when asked al<a9t H.. Without taking
fhe tF0o5!e to determine. ahethsr he would
take ofTsnse or nos he walked up "a him
ard asked him wt1y he had heen cireaiia.-
fas these Hes at>oat him around town X
Ii un}g fair herw 20 say that cennelIa claims
shsg tire movement which The prosecutions
witnesses characterized SIS a blow on the
fare WAS tire tsggwfng up az his hand 10
ratCh What Re supposed vas a threatened
blow sss Nelson
''way II 81 tsa, you lid not call Wit
lsszsses 20 tae geaf character az NeL@en,''
a fssssAGse B.s character wa@ nat attacked
~ she dsfease ard under the Eaw tire pros
eratson cannot introduce evidence Of good
character 90 deceased anil hts character
IS farSs attacked ~ the defense"
Character Witnesses Not Called.