The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-03-05
LATTIMER EVIDENCE ENDS.
BOTH SIDES Los IN THE TRIAL
OF MARTIN AND DEPUTIES.
The Day spent In Hearing nebnttai Testimony
rho Defence Prepares Requests Tor JudEe
woodward 70 Pass Upon ne tho Next STEP
In thn Gan.-nni... n M EnnnnA linnn-

- hNAN HpE1t y W "
rho Defence Preparcs REQUESTS Tor JudEe
Woodward 70 Pnss Upon ne tho Next STEP
In the Cnse-Points 90 Ne Passed Upon.
WhKEsBARRE, Pa, March 4.-To.day's pro-
ceedings in the trial Of Sheriff Martin and his
deputies for the shooting Of the riotous strik.
ers at Lattimer on Sept. 10 last were confined to
hearing tho testimony Of n few witnesses In re-
buttal OF statements made by witnesses for the
defence and to the testimony OF other wit
nessos at the preliminary hearing. The de-
fence sought to bring out by the testimony Of
the latter witnesses that the story OF the Har-
wood meeting and tho resolution not to carry
clubs were not thought Of at the preliminary
hearing and were only invented later on to
strengthen the case for the prosecution. In this
endeavor the defence was not successful. Wit
nesses Andrew Sivar, John f. Ola, Andrew
Novotny. Frank Krupa, and Andrew Sivar No.
2 said that they had not been asked anything
about the HARDWOOD meeting at the:preliminary
hearing and therefore could not have said any
thing about 1t there.
Tho defence then offered tho statements
made by tho witnesses at the preliminary hear
ing In evidence, Nv. Palmer arguing that the
mon told n different story at this hearing and
did not refer TO the important fact Of the Har-
wood meeting and orders not to carry clubs on
this occasion. Mr.. Martin argued against tho
admission of this testimony, and his remarks
ELECTED loud applause from the friends Of the
strikers in the courtroom. This annoyed the
Judge, and with the order to tho tipstavo to
preserve order. he remarked that the court
room was not a concert hall, and anyone who
made any outward signs Of approval or disap.
prevail would BIO put out. After some further
argument on the question Of the admissibility
of tho testimony, Judge Woodward sustained
the objection of the Commonwealth and ruled
1t out.
Mr.. Jonathan then announced that the de-
fence rested. and the Commonwealth called
some more witnesses in rcbuttal. Thomas p.
Ryder. a reporter for the wilkesbarre Record,
the first of these, said that he met Sheriff Mar
tin in Wilkesbarre Immediately after his re-
turn from the scene of the shooting an! saw no
wounds on his face. i. ii. Strauss and Charles
L. Keck gave similar testimony. which diff
cred only from Ryder's in that Keck said that
the Sheriff had remarked to him thar he had
been very roughly handled. Joseph Costello
was then recalled to contradict tho testimony
of Deputy Hess thatHess had not threatened to
shoot Costello just after the shooting lat Latti.
mer because Costello had said to Hess that it
was an outrage. The witness repeated that ho
had said to Hess that 1t was a shame to kill men
like that. and that Hess had then pointed his
gun at him and said:
shut up, or I'll give you the sane dose"
John Nicholson. the succeeding witness, cor
alio announced that it rested and court ad-
journed until tomorrow morning.
When court reconvenes Mr.. Lenahan OF coun-
the case from the consideration of the jury for
Counsel for the defendants respectfully re-
quest the court to charge the jury as follows:
81. The Sheriff Is the chief conservator of tho
public peace within his bailiwick and is bound
ex officio to the performance of this duty. For
this purpose he may command the posse conf
tatus, or power of the county. and every male
over the age Of - years Is bound to obey this
'2. In exercising his authority to call out the
posse, it is the exclusive duty Of the Sheriff to
such action exists. II it Is made to appear to
him that tumult or riot is threatened he may
faet be tn nsor Gas,; n m iu ape ae poWer anS his OF in a9ls
ment cannot be examined into and reviewed in
Interior proceedings against him in the light of
'3. No particular formality is required on the
part of the sheriff in calling out the posse and
OF the posse need be proved.
II. The Sheriff must ommand every, man he
luminous to bring his arms, and whether com
manded or not every man on the
Sheriff posse has the right to come armed.
rs. The Sheriff and:his.posse are a1awful as
satisfy the mind beyond a reasonable doubt
that they conspired and combined to do some
unlawful act inconsistent with the acts which.
they were called upon to perform in the line of
'6. Evidence that each one or particular ones
acted ILLEGALLY or maliciously is not proof of a
-. There is no evidence in this case which
would nv warrant ARA MIA a aSem6,a anat the DEFENDANTS
"s. The strikers. including Nike Ceslak. the de.
ceased, were an unlawful assemblage. a body OF
70. The question of whether it was necessary
to resort to the extreme means of firing on the
Judgment. which cannot be Tuestioned u" even en-
though it shall appear that the firing was not
necessary, if,the Judgment was honestly formed
10. II the jury find that the prisoners had rea-
son to believe that the strikers were about to
loss OF life or.of grievous bodily harm or of being
ovcrpOwcrcd. then they had the right to defend
themselves by the use of force sufficient to repel
II. If the jury find that the prisoners hon
estly believed that they were in danger of being
of life or grievous bodily'harm or of being over
powered, they had.th right to use force suffi-
Sonnd TO Su Ifpei Of fh sn S's otfenc sn an thgy this Gsn indic 70
ment, even II the jury find that such a belief
was unfounded.
fact that nj the time Mike Ceslak was killed
the prisoners wero acting as the posse or the
Sheriff and under his orders. AS such they had
the right to use all necessaryforce even to the
taking OF life. to disperse the assembly of strik.
ers. II they refused to disperse after being
IS. If any deputy ~wilfully.. knowingly. and
maiiciously continued firing after the necessity
IOr HrlnR nHusCeubcu anu ulu ny bucn llTlnB XIII
Mike Ccsluk. he may be found guilty under tho
but to convict any one the jury
must dissatisfied beyond'a reasonable doubt "a
that some person did so fire and be able to iden;
tify the person; tfl that no did 1t wilfully and
maliciously intending TO kill; tC) that Mike
Ceslak was killed by such person.
IA. As the testimony does not disclose the
identity OF any person who fired in the manner
described. a conviction of any of the prisoners
would not be warranted.
10. Before any ono OF tho prisoners can be
convicted the jury must be satisfied beyond n
reasonable doubt: lAI that some one OF them
had special malice toward the deceased or gen.
eral malice toward the whole body of strik srs
and intended unlawfully to kill some one of
them without caring which one; U) that such
maliciously disposed, person did in fact fire and
kill Mike Ccslak; tCl that the evidence clear
ly identified that particular person.
10. That 1t appears from the evidence. sub
without dispute, that the prisoners
were lawfully, aiding the sheriff ass posse,
duly appointed at the time Mike Ceslak was
and that their purpose. was to dispcr5o
an unlawful assemblage OF which the deceased
was one; that there was no conspiracy among
them to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful
act in an unlawful way: therefore tho act of one
cannot be imputed TO the others, each one is to
be held accountable only for what he himself
did Tho evidence falling to identify the Der-