The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-04-22

called by the defense to attack the rep
utation Of h murdered man. They
. not q single witness from among
Days fellow workmen and associat =.
but brought In several bar tenders and
saloon keepers. men engaged in the
same business h IA Works ~as. who
said they had similar trouble with
DAILY. The defendants other witt
nesses all had a good word to say for
DAILY. who. they said. was a harmless.
good-natured. rollicking big boy. who
harmed anyone and had no III
feeling toward Works when he went
behind the bar and was shot down in
cold blood.
j. L. Wines made the opening argu-
ment for the defense and spoke briefly.
He said he would not take much Of the
jury's time. because both Mr.. Nc
Clernan and Mr.. Cotter would follow
physical condition. being in poor
health. Mr.. Wines a that in all his
experience in courts as a lawyer he had
never seen a case where a defendant
was more completely justified than this
defendant was in his actions. He said
the law did not make II the duty of a
man TO retreat or call for assistance
when assailed. Works was a mere In
FAINT in the hands Of DAILY. and the lat
ter a no right to go behind the bar.
Works believed his life was in danger
and that was in danger Of receiving
great bodily harm from DAILY. who
doubtless meant to kick Works vitals
out. The law doesn't require a man to
be a coward or turn on his heel m
nee. n thus increase his danger. The
defendant had a right to act on APP
p~earances. as they were presented to
him, and the law Toes not hold him re-
sponsible for a mistake Of judgment.
Works is not glOating over what he has
done. He will suffer for II the longest
day he lives. but he vas forced into
the position where it became necessary
for him to take a human life. He will
be followed by the shadow of his I'M
fortunate affair. al AFFAIR not brought
on by his bidding. While II was unfor-
tunate for both. il vas brought about
by the deceased and not by this defend
ant, n the jury can arrive at no other
conclusion than that the defendant be-
lieved his life was In danger and that
he simply exercised his God-given right
to defend Ii.
John b. McClernan followed for the
defense. and read a portion Of the in
formation and said the state was re-
quired to prove all Its allegations be-
yond a reasonable doubt, which 1t had
failed to do. The testimony all showed
that all h defendant was guilty of
was the exercise of a God-given right
to defend himself against a violent and
vicious attack from a young Hercules.
He was r~ightfully N lawfully be-
hind the bar. n he acted as a reason
able man when he got the revolver to
defend himself against a man who had
previously threatened and assaulted
him. The defendant was as a baby in
the hands of Ed DAILY. He acted rs
any sane n prudent man would have
acted under like circumstances. There
has been some comment of the fact
that DAILY was unarmed and that the
defendant was therefore unJustiied in
using a weapon II he had not he might
now be where Ed DAILY is lying. He
explained his action in pulling the gun
for the purpose Of intimidating DAILY.
Why didn't DAILY go back when he saw
the weapon in the hands of the defend
ant. 1t is only for the jury to say
whether the defendant acted as a rea-
onabl man when he got his gun and
his assailant. Mr.. McClernan paid
a compliment to the prosecuting officers
for the fairness with which they con-
Quoted the case. He also spoke of the
fairness of all witnesses except Pete
Clark and John ID. Ryan. The only
claim the former nae to recognition.
said Mr.. McClernan, was that ne said
he was a brother to County Commits
sioner Clark. but the latter Is not to
blame for that. n the jury should
harbor no i'll will against the commis-
sioner on that score. The attorney re-
ferred to h testimony of PAT Daily.
who said that Works had taken a cou-
pie OF shots at him n a friend. Mr..
McClernan said the records of the po-
lice court did not show that any such
occurrence ever place. II II had
Works would have been prosecuted inc
would now be serving a term In the
penitentiary instead OF being pm trial
now as defendant in this case. In con-
GLIDING Mr.. McClernan asked the jur-
ors to put themselves in the place OF
the defendant and see If they would not
have acted Just as he did,.
John W. Cotter made the closing and
chief argument for the defense, begin
ming at IL: 20 o'clock. He began by say
ing that he did not propose to try the
county attorneys Office. Al they were
not on trial. but he then proceeded to
say that Mr.. Stapleton was young and
would earn as he grew older. Mr..
Stapleton. he said, resorted to the old
trick, employed by prosecuting attor-
neys older than Mr.. Stapleton will ever
be, of unloading the cas- on the defend
ants attorneys after recognising the
weakness of his own case. Mr.. Cotter
then took up the testimony and re-
viewed 1t In detail and sal he could
not see from what the prosecuting at
torney drew the deduction that DAILY
went behind the bar to help himself to
q drink. whereas the evidence was that
Daily grabbed hold of Works and push
ed him back until Works was forced to
defend himself. The evidence showed
that Daily had hold of Works before he
EVER reached for his gun. Mr.. Cotter.
referring to the testimony of John ID.
Ryan. said he did not believe he should
criticise his testimony after the frank
admission mad by Ryan that he was
doing considerable drinking. His per-
sonal appearance. while on the stand.
indicated h a hewas in the habit OF
indulging in a drink every time he got
a chance. Mr.. Cotter said II was not
the duty of Works to r%etreate or call for
assistance. The law throws around
every person its sacred and majestic
circle. and everyone who enters IL does
so at his peril. The testimony of Pete