Spirit of the age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1845-1913, 1900-07-14

had not been for undue haste on part
of Hoffman the shooting would not
have occurred.
FRANK SHAW TESTIFIES.
Frank Shaw, the respondent, then
took the stand. He said he did not
break Jail. Dustin Shaw, his father,
told him there was way out and
they escaped. He secured gun ut
Barnard for the purpose of shooting
game. He was in camp in Stock
bridge when he heard a breaking of
a limb, and Sheriff Spafford APP
peared. Witness had the gun raised
to his hip, with his finger on the
trigger. Dustin Shaw also picked
up his gun. Spafford said, "Hullo
boys" and the elder Shaw made
a similar response. Spaftord and
Dustin Shaw both said, "Don't have
any shooting" Witness heard a
voice say, "Drop that gun or III
bore ii hole through you,' but he
saw no one. An instant later bull
let whizzed past his face. He
jumped and his gun accidentally dis
charged. Spafford then fired and
both the Shaws started on run.
Shaw said that he did not know
Hoffman was shot until he reached
Middlebury.
The cross-examination was then
begun by Mr.. Stickncv but court
soon took recess till Monday morn
ing.
Dustin Shaw was called by the
defence Monday, his testimony COR
roborating his sons as to the circum-
stances attending the shooting; re-
spondent did not aim at any one and
he was fired ut before his gun was
discharged.
DR.. Stephens of White River
Junction called by defense; owned
the rifle carried by DR.. Hoffman and
said it had been fired before being
returned to him. This closed the
defence.
Evidence in rebuttal was intro
duced by the State Tuesday morn
ing, in explanation of the condition
of the gun. Deputy Sheriff Tink-
ham, the evidence showed, had left
the gun at hotel at Lake Dunmo'e
for an hour or two and during his
absence some of the members of the
pursuing party waiting there were
firing at a target.
THE ARGUMENTS.
After the noon recess States At
torney J. q. Sargent opened the
arguments contrasting the trial with
that of a civil cause and saying it was
really judicial investigation. a
citizen had been killed and confess
sedly by bullet from the rifle of the
respondent. The latter explained
that the shooting was an accident.
The testimony of the State was that
it was deliberate and intentional. 1t
was for the jury b say.
Mr.. Davis followed for the re-
spondent, speaking for an hour and
IA half, defining the law of homicide.
He urged careful consideration OF
the evidence tending to support the
respondents claim that he was first
fired at by Hoffman. On the evil
dence he submitted it could not be
said beyond Il reasonable doubt that
the respondent was guilty of murder.
w. b. G. Stickney began the clos
ing argument for the State Tuesday
afternoon, concluding Wednesday
forenoon. Every single act of the
respondent, he urged, from the be-
ginning of his flight up to his arrest
showed deliberate defiance of the
law and determination to sacrifice a
life if necessary to secure his free
dom. The evidence was skilltullv
summed up by counsel, the testi.
mony on the part of the State, he
argued, showing that the shooting
was wiltul and premeditated, ard
Mr.. Stickney several times raised
Frank Shaw's gun to his shoulder in
illustrating Shaw's attitude.
Aftera brief recess Judge Munson
charged the jury, defining the several
degrees of homicide. He instructed
the jury that if the facts as to the
shooting were as testified to BY Sher-
if Spaford, it would constitute MUIR
der, but whether of the first or sec.
ond degree it was for the jury to say.