Evening star., 1898-11-10
BLACK EYES IN EVIDENCE
Result of Personal Encounter Between Two
Dentists.
Allegation Made by DIR. Reeves
Against DR.. Wunder-Case Heard
in the Police Court.

Two South Washington dentists. William
H. Wunder and George B. Reeves. were
parties to an assault case tried in the Po
lice Court this morning. The former aD
peared as defendant, and the latter as COM
plainant. The affair is alleged to have
taken place the 9th of last month in Den
tist Reeves office. The victims eyes still
showed evidences of discoloration from the
effects of the assault.
The trial was had by jury, and the de-
fendant was represented by Attorney Tur-
ner DR.. Reeves told the jury that the day
in question DR.. Wunder called at his office
under the influence of liquor and assaulted
him. He was struck several times, he said
and when he went &c the floor he was
kicked on his head until he was uncon-
sciOus. How long he remained in this con-
dition he did not know. Witness said that
prior to the assault he said to DR.. Wunder:
You are drunk, and d drunken mans
no good
Cross-examined by counsel, DR.. Reeves
said he occupied the Office formerly occu-
pied by the defendant. He denied that he
had made any statement against the de-
fendant's character
DR.. Montgomery told the court and jury
of the complanant's black eye and several
cuts and bruises about his face
Policeman Henry testified as to the in
vestigation he made of the case. He de-
scribed DR.. Reeves visit to the station
with his face cut and stained with blood.
When he found DR.. Wunder later in the
day he said to witness, speaking of Reeves:
Il knocked him down and kicked h out
of him
Defendants Statement.
The defendant testified that after hearing
of DR.. Reeves alleged statements about
him, he called upon him for an explanation
AS soon as he reve lled his identity, he
said, Dr. Reeves ordered him out of the
Off n h, with hiD
oak chair. AS he, did so. defendant said,
he grabbed him and both went to the floor.
Defendant said he was excited and he may
have struck him. II his foot touched DR.,
Reeves 1t was accident. He denied that
he intoxicated when he went to the
office. and he also denied the statement at
tributed to him by the officer.
DR.. r. B. Leonard, also a dentist who
was with DR.. Wunder when he met Officer
Henry, denied the statement attributed to
him by the officer. DR.. Wunder, he said,
had not been drinking.
Mr.. C. o. Abbott testified that the day
of the fight he was with the defendant. who
took one drink during the whoe morning.
He waited on the street while his friend
went in the office of DR.. Reeves. When
he came out he told witness that Dr.
Reeves had assaulted him, but that he
(Reeves) did not get the best of 1t.
George w. Smithsoa told the jury tha.
one day in June DR.. Reeves told him DIR.
Wunder was a drunken rascal, and was
the of business being down. He told
the defendant what the complainant had
said.
On cross-eXamination witness said he had
some work done by DR.. Reeves and he
overcharged him for it. This, he said he
could prove by DR.. Wunder, as the latter
had done similar work for him and had
charged him mitch less for the work 1t
during the discussion about this work
that DR.. Reeves made the remark about
the defendant.
The Verdict.
This closed the testimony and counsel
proceeded with the arguments. Judge Kim
ball charged the jury, and soon afterward a
verdict of guilty was returned.
Attorney Turner, for the defendant gave
notice of motion in arrest of judgment.