The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-02-19


Charles H. James.
Dennis M. Smith.
AS soon as the jury announced that
they had agreed on d verdict the de-
PENDANT was brought into the court
room. He was represented by his at
torney, E. S. Booth. County Attorney
Connolly was also present and SO were
large number of spectators. shafer
scanned the faces of the jurors and
doubtless saw what every one else i'll
the room observed-that he was going
to get what was coming to him. Not
one of the jurors looked at him.
Gentlemen, have you agreed upon
verdict?" asked Judge Clancy.
Yes, sir; we have" answered Fore
man Casey, as he passed the papers up
to the Judge, who, after looking over the
verdict, handed it to Clerk Hardcastle,
and the latter read:
THE state of Montana, plaintiff,
versus, Joseph shafer, defendant, yer
dict-We, the jury in the above entitled
action, find the defendant, Joseph
Shafer, guilty of the crime of murder IN
the first degree.
THOMAS f. CASEY, For .man."
Skaters face may have turned
shade more yellow, but otherwise he
showed no feelings he may, nave had.
do you desire the jury poll I'd - asked
the court, and Mr. Booth sail he id.
Every man answered firmly that he
agreed to the verdict, and IN they
| were discharged and Shafer was taken
back to Jail by Bailiff Shay. Lawyer
Booth followed him and offered him
what consolation there may be in the
assurance he gave him that he would
get another trial, but If he was honest
the attorney did notffee1 what he as-
serted, though he afterwards repeated
that an appeal would be taken and a
new trial would be secured, but then
Booth is something of {. buffer himself
The record of the trial contains but
two exceptions that are Of any account,
and both were made to the introduce
ton of any evidence concerning trouble,
| between Shafer and his victim. John
Hawkins, at Columbia gardens about
an hour and half before the murder
in the Swim saloon on the morning OF
Aug. II, 1897. Two witnesses testified
that Shafer and Hawkins had fight at
the gardens and that Shafer took shot
or two at him at that time. The evil
dence was offered only for the purpose
of showing malice on the part of Shafer,
and the competency of such evidence is
strongly and plainly affirmed by the SUI
preme court in the case of the territory
against Scott, reported in the Seventh
Montana, and in the case of the terri
tory against Manton. reported in the
Eighth Montana. Wharton and Kerr,
in their works on homicide, and the SUI
preme court of California say such tes-
| timony for the purpose of proving mall
| ice is competent. 1t is held by these
courts and authorities that threats and
| previous difficulties may be introduced
| as evidence tending to prove malice.
The courts instructions to the jury
were taken from the statutes and none
| of the instructions offered by the de-
| tense were refused, SO it does not seem
| likely that there was any serious error
in the courts instructions. An objec-
! ton had been made to the introduction
| of any testimony under the informa-
| ton because Shafer had not been given
preliminary trial. but the same OBJ
| lection had been made and overruled
at the former trial, and when the case
reached the supreme court the point was
not argued by Skaters attorneys.
The only sympathy felt or expressed
| for Shafer is because of the shameful
| mess that had been made of his defense
| at the former trial and from which he
| could not recover, as it practically left
| him without any defense at all at his
last trial except the intimation thrown
| to the jury that Hawkins might have
committed suicide or that he was muir
| dered by someone. else after Shafer had
sent bullet through him. The effort
of one of his lawyers. Wines, to create
sympathy for Shafer by an uncalled for
and vicious attack~on newspapers and
personal abuse of reporters evidently
did not go with the jury There Were
members on that jury who. doubtless
| knew something about the lawyer them
selves and they considered, the. source
| and probably the reason for his dyspep-
tic attack. Aside from the. Shafer. case
| it is fact we'll known and generally
recognized that no .intelligent jury or
other body of Intelligent men will
stand" for, a personal roast" on news
paper writers, and persons, who have
business to do with the. courts will not
have lawyer to represent them who
makes 1t his aim to antagonize the press.
Another observation is that as a general
rule few men ever have just cause for
attacking newspapers . and newspaper
reporters and when they doiso it is on
theory similar to that which causes a
| criminal to hate the law and the laws
| officers.
No date has yet been set for passing
sentence on Shafer. Mr.. Booth gave no
| tice yesterday of intention to move for
new trial. In the ordinary course OF
| procedure it is not probable the supreme
court can pass on the appeal within
| wear