The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1905-03-24
lE1CAsR GOT FIVE YEARS
preSidlng Judge overruled the Mo,
ton fer a New Tral-LiAely
He II Have 10 Serve 1t

lit Il HaNe 10 Nerve III
Bryan o., March l~&-JudSe Don
ueily this moruine heard the motion
tor a rev trial as sled in the Letch-
er arson case. Tins afternoon be
o~verruled tie motion and sentenced
Letcher 10 tve years, The case VIII
be appealed.
The defendant filed five ahdayits
in support OF the motion. The mo-
tlon, which was hled Thursday, asks
for a new trial fortwo reasons. First
stating thar rhs verdict is not sus-
tanned by sufficient evidence and is
contrary to law, and, second, error
occurring in the trialin the admission
OF evidence by Jack Page regarding
alleged Conversations in the bank of
defendant at Fayette, in oyerruling
OF motion at close OF testimony TO
direct a verdict for defendant, in ad-
hitting impeachment testimony
against George EladdiN ana aft, r
wards Withdrawing same from tue
jury, in admitting testimony offered
by the State and rejecting evidence
offered by the defendant.
An amended motion was filed by
the defense, alleging misconduct of
Hy Davis, state fire marshal, in
stating in argument that the defend
ant had thirteen fires; misconduct of
attorneys in placing Delos Pratt ON
the witness stanc.. and in the pres
ence OF the jury nullifying the indict-
ment against him, and misconduct of
the states attorney in Withholding
contract for pardon OF Homer Morri-
son.
An alfidavit was filed by attorney
Starr stating that they had no rea-
son to suppose Pratt would make
statements contrary to his California
deposition. An affidavit by Grant
Fellows stating that some newly dis
covered evidence, being a letter from
Toledo attorneys, written on October
%, 1888, having an important bearing
on the case, had been discovered, was
filed, and:also an aitidavit by Attorney
Bruchard stating that the proceed
ings OF the court, the jury and the
state attorneys, as followed out,
prevented defendant from having a
fair trial.
The motions and a%dhiavits were all
read by r. L. Starr, to the court, but
the last atfidavit was afterwards with
drawn, not being sufficient in detail.
On behalf OF the defense r. l..
Starr commenced the argument at 10
O'Clock.
Mr.. STAIRS argument consumed
about an hours time and took IN all
details and special allegations set
forth In the motions. O. G. BuIch-
ard followed on part of the defense.
Judge BoweIsox appeared on behalf
OF the state. This argument was a
fiat denial of all the allegations in
the at1idavits. Specia, attention was
paid to the charges of impeachment
of HaddiX in the amended motion
covering the testimony of Delos
Pratt. Frequent references were
made to the records in the case, and
to Pratt's first affidavit before the
governor of California.
After dinner Prosecutor Attorney
Edward GaudeIn resumed the argu-
ments on lebalf Of the state, citing
under which the evidence
was submitted. He was followed by
Grant Fellows summing up for the
defense, and the judge took the mat
ter under Amusement.
Letcher appeared IN court this
morning apparently as cheerful and
bright as Eel He listened eagerly
to every word of argument.
Quite a degree Of interest was man
ifested during the session and the
was we'll filled both morning
and afternoon.
-