The Dickinson press., 1898-11-19
the scufie, and the first blow he saw was
one by Goodallon the defendant.

GI
one by Goodall on the defendant.
Mrs. Lowry was going into DeGrafFs.
store when she saw two men approach
ing each other. Whent they got together
near the restaurantthe man coming from
the west struck the mancoming from the
east, and then the scufle ended.
Wa. Northrop testified that he saw
the ~fracas, and the first blow was struck
by Goodall.
Clayton Crews testified in his own be-
half. He said he had fired off one shot in.
the street. He was met blythe complain
ing witness, who struck him without any
p~rovocation. The witness merely acted
in self defense. He did not know who
Goodall wa or why he should strike him.
The case was summed up by the attor-
neys, the jury was charged by the court,
and a verdict was brought in of guilty of
assault with a dangerous weapon with
intent to commit a felony.
The sentence under this verdict can.
not be less than one year in the peniten-
tiary nor more than five years; it also per-
mits of a fine not exceeding $500. A mo-
ton and arrest of judgment and a motion
for a new trial were made, and as lthe
court had to return east "Wednesday
night the matter was continued until
Dec. 6, when Judge Sauter will return to
Dickinson. In the mean time defendant
is held under a continuing bon' in the
sum of $1,000.
States Attorney Simpson certainly
handled this prosecution in an able man
ner and the people who have been in
clined to censure him for previous post
ponements can have no further complaint.
MI. Simpson has shown diligence and
ability in every phase of the case from
its inception.
Angus Pelette VS.. o. P. liner, a civil
action brought to recover some $1,000 the
value of property which plaintiff claimed
to have been %wrongfully disposed of and
a similar amount as damages. was taken
up and tried Wednesday. The plaintiff
claimed that liner sold him the P ranch,
including a considerable amount of per-
sonal property, for s1,42o sometime about
the Ist of May, 1897, that said liner was
to furnish all the money needed to run
the ranch, that he, plaintiff, was to make
his first payment on the property during
the fall of 1893, $500 or more, and a SINH
lar amount the following year, and so on
until paid. Plaintiff testified that a con-
tract had been drawn up which was new
err signed by either party; that he went
onto the ranch in May and that Elmer
paid all the help in connection with put
ting up 300 tons of hay and other ranch
work, and furnished supplies for the
ranch and Improvements in the way of
lumber, doors, paint, etc. The item of
paint plaintiff claimed to have given Ii
ner his note for and he also claimed to
have given his note for small amounts of
money which he used in running the
ranch, amounting, not including the paint
note, which could not be found, to about
$40. Plaintiff claimed to have been un-
lawfully dispossesed of the ranch and
property by liner in the fall, 81 months
a%fter..taking possession. Plaintiff did not
claim that he had paid a cent toward the
purchase of the ranch or secured in any
way such payment or that any person
besides himself knew about his agree
ment with liner. On the other hand, de.
fendant testified that Pelette was his
brother-in-law, had been known to him
less than three years, had worked for him
on the ranch in controversy the year pre-
vious to April, 1897; that he had paid
Pelette off in full and given him to un-
derstand that he did not want him any
longer; that Pelette was in Dickinson
without work, his wife sick, and that he
talked to him about buying the F
ranch but that no agreement was arrived
at and that he said that he would like
to go back and go to work anyway
Defendant testified that he finally told
Pelette to go back to the ranch if he
wanted to and see if he could moi dc
better than he had the past year. He
testified further that Pelette wanted
small advances of money which were
granted, plaintiffs notes being taken
therefor. Two of the notes were exc.
cuted the last days of April, 1897, which
according to the testimony of both side.
was absolutely before Pelette went te
the ranch. The notes were placed il
evidence by liner together with othel
notes given by Pelette during the sum
mer. The theory Of the plaintiff wal
that these notes, together with state
ments of supplies liner had sent t.
Pelette during the summer, proved tn
sale Of the property, liner testified tina
he found that Pelette was having troubl.
with the men at the ranch and did no
seem to be managing very well, and wen
out there and settled up with Pelette a
ISIS per month, allowing him S pc
F. month more than price agreed upon il
the spring inasmuch as he had only beef
employed through the best part of tn
season, gave him a check for 500 AM
: told him that he would balance the ac
j.. count with him when he came to tow
telling Pelette at the same time that h
did not want him any longer and wishe,
5 him to get away from the ranch as 500
. as convenient. Pelette acknowledge,
. getting the 500, and the said check wa
placed in evidence, but he claimed tha
e he accepted it in payment of the boar
e of a ranch hand who had been Their
e boarding 5K months while working o
. liners sheep ranch near by. liner tie.
Z titled that he moved Pelette's %..furnitur
r away from the ranch to the home of Mr.
Pelette's father, about this time, an
that he had been in possession of tn
ranch since.
Under the law governing the actio
brought. the iury had nothing to do othe