The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1902-03-21
JURY BRINGS IN VERDICT OF AS.
sAuLT in SECOND DEGREE.
FIX PENALTY AT ONE YEAR
Prisoner Remanded to Custody Of
sherih-Win Be Sentenced
Saturday.

Judge Loud reconvened the district
court yesterday morning and at once
began the consideration of business
The panel of the jury was called and
the sheriff reported that out of the
list of SO men whose names had been
given him he had been unable to find
even. The seven on whom service
could not be made were, Jacob Ham
mond, W. H. Mccormick, Joseph
Sims, Henry L. Hammos, W. H
White, Robert Leavens and George
w. Handel. The following who re
sponded to their names were excused
on their own motion: Frank M. Mar
BILE, F. B. Chapman, Warran Evans,
S. b. Sawyer, Jr., Charles Retallick,
John Lindburg, Ed. Smith, Albert
Myers, George Hammond and w. B.
Ten Eyck.
A special venire for eight was is
sued and pending its service the court
took a short recess. The eight who
came into court were, w. L. Mains,
J. ]. Davis, William jeffrey, Frank
Clark, Newell Van Tassell, l.. E.
Schad, Fred Doelz and H. E. Merritt,
All were excused, except Doelz, who
was drawn on the jury in the case of
State VS.. Charles Wyman, the first
action to come up for hearing.
The panel as finally made up for
the term is composed of Irwin Pears
all, John HOLSTER, ]. F. Sanford, c..
E. Witham, Walker Browning, E. B..
Kennedy, j.. W. Epperson, Richard
Buck, John Schroeder, J. w. Fish,
John McCurdy, Elliott Keene, R. B..
Huckleberry, F. ]. Davis, Andrew
Dahlstrom, Thomas Chatwood, Ed
ward O'Donnell, William Deal and E.
P. Boshart.
State vs.. Wyman.
The case Of State VS.. Charles Wy
man, assault in the first degree, was
called and the following jurors were
sworn to try it.: Fred Doelz, John Nc
Curly, J. W. Fish John Schroeder,
Richard Buck, J. W. Epperson, E. B.
Kennedy. Walker Browning, G. E.
Witham, j. F. Sanford, John Hollis
ter, Irwin Pearsall.
County Attorney Hathhorn read the
information against the defendant in
which he stands charged with having
%feloniously and without due or just
cause assaulted one William M. Oak
ley. on or about January 80, 1902, by
shooting him in the shoulder with a
revolver. ~.
Oakley was the first witness called
and gave his version of the affair,
which substantiated the charge in the
information in that it tended to show
that the defendant had no greater
provocation for the assault than that
the complaining witness was about to
drive through his field, a proceeding
to which the defendant, it seemed,
objected and backed up his objection
by shooting Oakley. The latter de-
MED that he had made any assault on
the defendant and swore that he was
standing several feet away from him
when he shot. He said that he believ-
ed the defendant felt aggrieved at him
for having a%ccidently broken his fence
a few days before.
Peter Cooper, who was present at
the time of the shooting, proved to
be an amusing witness and his name
of stating" things caused even the dig
nified court at times to smile broadly
at his unconscious humor. Cooper
said he was standing behind the
wagon when Wyman began talking to
Oakley and believing that there would
be trouble had sought shelter behind
a convenient tree, from which he
had viewed most of what had occur
red. He said Wyman had been the
aggressor throughout; that he had re-
piled with an oath and vile epithet to
Oakley's friendly greeting and after
some words had drawn his revolver
from his pocket and begun shooting,
firing three shots. After the shooting
Oakley had asked him to take the
team home, while Wyman had walked
toward his house.
When Wyman testified in his own
behalf he made it appear that Oakley
had been the aggressor and that he
had shot in self defense, claiming
that Oakley had pulled off his coat and
had chased him some considerable dis
lance, all the while telling him he
would pound the life out of him. He
said he had held the pistol in the air
before he fired the first shot and
warned Oakley not to approach him
any closer, but Oakley had disregard
al kho vvo - - - - E,