Bismarck daily tribune., 1902-02-26

their testimony as it had offered it.
How could May possibly profit by the
killing of this man, when both he
and Mrs. Hibbs were married. The
motive attempted to be shown was in
sufficient even if shown. 1t was SO
as to the transfer of property. May
could not have profited by preventing
that. It could be shown that he was
possessed of property enough not to
stand in need Of the little property
that Harry Hibbs died possessed OF.
The state was bound by the testimony
of Mrs Hibbs as it had offered it: the
testimony of Scovil was too general.
with too little certainty as to details.
to bring any weight to the case of the
state. The testimony of all the wit
nesses did not furnish one iota of eyi-
dence beyond suspicion and coniec-
ture. The defendant had tried to con-
ceal nothing. Several bugaboos had
been produced and talked about, among
them the hay found in the stove and
which the state had not even produced.
Inc actions of the defendant were not
unreasonable, and when the whole
case was simmered down and weighed
there was not evidence enough pre-
sented to hang yellow dog.
States Attorney Allen made a brief
in h faI, L. = - 49,.
admitted that the evidence was cir
cumstantial, but it was necessarily SO,
but the fact of crime was shown by
evidence as direct as could be given
The statement made by Mr.. Register
as to tampering with the body was toe
ridiculous for words. The assumption
that some one was interested enough
IN the downfall of May to take up the
body, inf1ict that fracture of the skull
and then RENTER the body was too fal
fetched to be worth consideration
1t was admitted that there was mis-.
take made when the body was not ex.
amlned with the knife when it was
first brought in, but that mistake was
not going to release the defendant
The doctor had stated that that wounc
was inflicted before or at very nearly
the time of death, The cap was p11t
In evidence to show that with that car
on such a wound could have been in.
flcted without breaking the skin. The
doctor had also stated as his opinion
That the blow had been inflicted by E
blunt instrument. That established
the fact OF a crime. There was moth
ing at or about the well that the vic.
tim could have fallen upon to inflic,
dow IN that way. This being tht
case, the fact of the crime being es
tablished, what were the circumstance.
and probabilities. First, there wer,
the contradictory statements made b,
May before the coroner's jury, whe,
he lent the inference that he had com
to the Hibbs residence the day befor
the death, when as fact he came tn
Saturday before. Then there was hi
testimony fatty given as to why tn
bucket in the we'll did not sink tha
morning, which he had changed OF
the second examination before the cor
oner, after learning that that buckle
would not stay at the top of the water
when the coroner's jury had gone t,
the ranch and made experiments. TIL
testimony of witnesses showed with
out contradiction that that buckle
would begin to sink the moment tn,
pulley was loosed and that the stor,
OF May could not be true. Was i
reasonable to suppose that May leav
ing the house that morning as he did
with the statement in a joke as it wa
claimed, that he would go out and ge
Harry out of the we'll, would 90 nea
enough to see the blood there and tn,