The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1903-12-11
FOR MURDER IN
SECOND DEGREE
SIMON BRANDT CASE ON
TRIAL IN COURT.
The Killing is Not Denied
by Prisoner.

Self Defense Plea Has Been Set Up by
Brandts Attorneys Controversy
Over Admitting Mitchelps So-Called
Dying Statement It Was Damaging
to the Defense.
The case Of the State of Ohio against
Simon Brandt, charged with murder In
the second degree, was taken up IN
court room No. Q before Judge Amber
Tuesday. This trial comes on before
the interest in the Harrison Baum
hearing had died cut and the court had
been in a criminal turmoil for several
weeks.
When the case was called Prosecut-
ing Attorney r. H. Day and Attorney
James ]. Grant appeared for the state
while quite an array Of legal talent
represented Brandt. There was Atlee
Pomerene of Canton, CELSIUS Pomerene
of Barberton, p. 8. Olmstead Of New
Philadelphia, 2. E. Olmstead OF
Winecburg and W.. s. Putnam of Will
mot
There was not much delay in get
ting jury. Several persons who had
been upon the Baum jury were excus-
ed. Prosecutor Day made a statement
of the case for the state, setting forth
what they expected to prove 1t was
claimed that on May 21 Reason Mitch
ell, farm hand in the employ OF
Brandt, had an alteration with
Brandts son and that the father took
II up. Without sufficient provocation
1t was charged, Simon Brandt struck
Mitchell over the head, fracturing his
skull The Sunday following he died.
Mr.. Day went into the details Of how
Mitchell made an effort to get away
from the Brandt place ana was found
by passers-by in semi-conscious
condition. The injured man was taken
to Wilmot and later to his home at
Winesburg, Holmes county.
Attorney e. e. Olmstead made the
statement for the defense. The killing
is not denied, but justification is
claimed. The charge was made that in
a quarrel that occurred between Mitch
ell and Brandt, Mitchell picked up a
stone and threatened to strike the
prisoner, and then IL was that Brandt,
picked up club, or stick, as the at
torney said, and struck In self defense
No more force was used than was ne
cessary to repel the attack. u,
The taking of testimony then began.
Surveyor Sicgafoose identified a may
that had been made of the premises
and it was admitted as evidence.
DR.. Ricksecker testified that he had
seen Mitchell near the Brandt home
but did not stop as he did not know
that there was anything the matter
with him. Joseph Lentz came along q
short time after and saw the man wan
dering along staggering like drunken
man. He went to him and found that
he was~in serious condition and
heard his story of the assault A little
later Rev. String drove up as he was
going toward Wilmot, he took Mitchell
into his buggy and took him 20 town.
DR.. Ricksecker testified as to the
mans condition after he had been cali
ed to wait upon him. The skull was
fractured as shown by an autopsy and
the wound was the cause of death.
There was very little testimony that
was of any exciting nature until
Charles E. Howenstine was placed up
on the stand. He is a brother-in-law
OF the dead man and was one OF the
parties who took Mitchell home 70
Winesburg. He was In a semi-con-
scious condition and when at Wines
burg he was taken into a closet. While
there he revived and made what the
state claims was an ante-mortem state
ment When Howenstine attempted to
tell what 1t was, the defense objected,
claiming that the state would have to
prove that Mitchell knew he was 60
ing to die and had made it with that
knowledge before his mind The law.
holds that such a condition is as bind
ing as an oath.
The jury was excused and the argu-
ments made to the court Authorities
were cited on both sides and what the
witness expected to testify was taken.
The court and counsel for both sides
requested that until the question was
passed upon It should not even be pub
lished, lest 1t should reach the jury.
When the hour for adjournment came,
the arguments had been concluded and
the authorities cited. Judge Amber
stated that he would take the matter
under advisement and give his de-
cision In the morning.
Mitchell's statement was rather SEN
sational, intimsting that the attack
was unwarranted
Howenstine will 60 upon the stand
at the opening OF court this morning
and his testimony will ospsnd upon
the decision Of Judge Amber. II the
evidence 10 admitted, It will prove to
be damaging to the defense.
Brandt, his wife and three children
were In the court room, and were in
terested listeners to all that occurred.
A large number OF persona were pres
ant from WiImOt and vtriuifv