Bridgeton pioneer., 1900-01-25

orators of the young men of the bar, and
he closely held the attention of the iurv
as he reviewed carefully the evidence,
and then asked the jury to consider the
position Bowers was placed in that night
He be ieved, and urged strenuously, thai
Bowers acted as he did because be felt
that he was in danger of serious bodily
/ injury The firing of the pistol, as the
defense claimed, was only for the purpose
of frightening Fowler and having him
desist in his efforts to hurt the defendant.
/ Prosecutor Fithian admitted to the Jury
that upon the night of the trouble Fowler
was intoxicated and quarrelsome. There
| was no excuse for the action of Fowler
de had no right to strike that first blow
but the question for the jury to decide
was, whether or not Bowers was justified
in Using deadly weapon to protect him
sab. Did Bowers have right to attempt
the life of Fowler because the blow was
struck? Was there no other means of
defense available? Was there no way for
Bowers to escape the blows of Fowler?
These were the questions Mr.. Fithian
urged, that the jury was to decide. Mr.,
f1thian pointed out some significant facts
that he thought should be we'll consid-
cred by the jury. What has become of
the revolver? Where was Bowers be.
tween ten O'Clock that night and one
O'Clock the next morning? If the re-
vover was supposed to be loaded with
blank cartridges why did Bowers say he
raA tn 81 -, 4.
Fowler? The search of Mr.. Iredell the
Prosecutor thought was ridiculous, and
the blank cartridges cut little figure.
In charging the jury, Judge Trenchard
said, Fowler had given altogether too
much prominence in this case. 1t had
been shown what kind of man Fowler
was. He had assaulted Bowers, and the
Grand Jury would have been justified in
indicting Fowler for that, and probably
the reason it neglected to do so was be-
cause Fowler had been shot, and had
been pretty we'll punished
But the rule of law was that an assault
with whip'or fist was not justification in
the assailed party repelling the assailant
by the use OF a deadly weapon, for that is
likely to result in taking of human life.
But the jury was to consider the condi-
tions surrounding the assailed party.
/ Regarding the contention of the defense
that the pistol was supposed to be loaded
with blank cartridges, Judge Trenchard
| remark ed that when man used pistol,
loaded, he must assume the natural G.
spo isibility of the act. The jury could
start with the view that when a man fred
a revolver. he did it with the idea of in
/ fcting death. OF course the defense had
a right to relent this contention, but it
must be clear.
| Friday Afternoon.
The last case tried was the indictment
against Albert Witsche, charged with
burglary and receiving stolen goods.
Witsche is German, and has been in
Jail for some time. Owing to his failure
to speak the English language very well.
Elliot Hardon was in Court as interpre.
ter.
The evidence developed the fact that
some months ago the residence of Egbert
Link, of Vineland, was robbed of a large
number of articles, and. subsequently,
while in Woodbury. Jail, Witsche con-
fessed that he and young man named
Thomas Bodine, alias Thomas Kit, COM
mitted the crime. The evidence was
pretty positive from the States side.
James Boyd Potter was assigned by the
Court for the defense of Witsche, and the
defendant denied that he had made any
confession to Lore. He admitted receiv-
ing some goods from Thomas Bodine, but
denied that he was engaged in any rob-
berry.
The Jury believed the story of the State
and brought in a verdict of guilty of
burglary.
During the afternoon the jury in the
James Bowers case returned verdict of
guilty OF assault and battery. The count
charging intent to kill, was ignored.
All the jurors were discharged with the
thanks of the Court and Sheriff Hendee
settled the per diem with each. The
highest paid man received money for
eleven days service.
Tuesday Morning.
Sentence day-the day when the un
fortunate wrong doers of the county are
removed before the honorable Judge of
the Cumberland Courts, to have meted
out to them the punishment which is
deemed proper to be imposed.
Before sentences were imposed John S.
Mitchell argued a motion for a new trial
in the case of Harry Bishop, of Millvilie,
convicted of the illegal sale of liquor
There were two reasons advanced by Mr.
Mitchell. First, the irregularity in EN-
panelling the jury in the case, and second,
newly discovered evidence. Mr.. Mitchell
| argued these points at length, claiming
they were of importance and sufficient to
| give the defendant another trial.