Audubon Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Iowa) 1894-1925, 1905-02-09
THE HARTZELL TRIAL
The Pemblns Pioneer Express olives
the Closing Scenes.
THURSDAY EVENING.

1 =
the defense at $50 p. m. court adjourn
ed until 1880 in the evening.
| The corridors of the court house
we're jammed full of people long be-
J fore the hours of opening and the
room was Immediately filed as soon
as the bailiffs opened the doors, and
thereafter many disappointed people
went home failing of admittance.
Attorney Brynjolfson, again spoke
in mastery and convincing manner
for the state, while Mr.. Cleary in
few brief remarks let the jury and
audience down to the ordinary level.
No news was heard from the Jury
which went out at IL o'clock next morn
ing after listening TO the charge of the
| judge, until about nine in the evening,
when they came in to hear some evil
dence given at the eoroner's jury read.
They retired and then kept at it until
about two in the morning before they
went to bed. They again came in at
| ii O'Clock the next morning for fur
ther instructions. The question they
| asked the court was in brief as to
whether Hartzell was justified In run
ming after Stoddard with his gun just
| before the shooting. The answer to
this question is to be found in the last
paragraphs of the charge of the Judge
printed elsewhere in this issue aud
was practically in the negative. The
| foreman said that they would not be
long in AGREEING and they were only
gone few minutes before returning
with verdict of ''manslaughter in
the first degree" and fixing the pun
| ishment at five years in the peniten-
| tiary. The prisoner did not show
| special emotion of any kind and the
| aged father just bowed his grey head
on the back of the sons chair. The
jury had many ballots. The first
ballots were in favor of acquital by
q vote of to Z The five were in
favor of murder in the second degree.
| Later ballots were evenly divided.
The last ballot taken shortly before
they came in for instructions was
three for manslaughter and nine for
| acquital.
| At the afternoon session Judge Fisk
gave notice of his withdrawal from
the trial of the Bascom case, which
Atty. Price moved for immediate trial.
This compelled the adjournment of
court until Judge Kneeshaw could
arrange for another judge to try that
| case. Later this was found hard to
arrange and not until Tuesday, the
day to which court was adjourned,
was the matter settled by the announce
| ment that Judge Pollock, of Fargo,
would arrive on Thursday to try the
case. Two weeks from last Friday
was set for pronouncing sentence on
| Hartzell, but as a motion for new
trial was made by the defendant s
attorneys, that time may be again
adjourned until later.
| YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.
Court reassembled on Thursday
afternoon, Judge Pollock, of Fargo,
presiding. Attorney Tracy Bangs OF
| Grand Forks appeared as additional
counsel for the defence. Mr.. Bangs
is one of the best lawyers in the state.
The work of electing jurors COM
menced Immediately. The course OF
| questioning and the fact that the
| Hartzell case was almost similar, in
dictate that it will probably take much
longer to get jury than previously.
JUDGES CHARGE.
| The preliminary part of Judge Fisk's
| charge related to the offence charged,
and legal definition of murder man
slaughter, etc. In applying the defn-
| ition to the case before the court the
words are IF you believe from the
evidence beyond reasonable doubt,
that defendant took the life of Byron
Stoddard as charged, and the killing,
| if any, was due in the heat of blood
or passion, upon reasonable provo.
cation, and without malice or design
to effect death, and if you further find
that it was not Unsuitable then charge
you that the defendant is guilty OF
manslaughter in the first degree" n n
IF the defendant while in possess
ion of his faculties sufficiently to con-
ceive design voluntarily and will
fully, did an act which had direc,
tendency to destroy another's life, the
Jury would have right to infer from
that fact that he intended the natural
consequence of his act.
If you believe from the evidence that
the defendant had no reason to believe
or did not in good faith believe thai
the deceased intended to take his life
or to inflict on him some great injury,
and that the defendant fired the fatal
shot in revenge, or in reckless spirit,
the defendant is not entitled to claim
exemption from punishment on the
ground that killing was in self-defence.
No one has the right to kill another
even in self-defence, unless such killing
; is necessary for such defence. Before
person can justify take the life of a
human being on the grounds of sell
defence he must when attacked, employ
all reasonable means within his power,
;. consistent with his safety, to avoid
/. the danger or even the necessity for
!, the killing, although he is not Obliged
| hic lilo mt X 4
, While Byron Stoddard had no right
to commit a trespass upon the property
of the defendant still the defendant
would not be justified in using dead.
ly weapon merely to prevent such
trespass, and although the evidence
showed that Stoddard had trespassed
upon the defendants property, and
! at the time the fatal shot was fired
was about to make wilful and un-
lawful trespass, still these facts
are only material in mitigation
of the offense charged.
eff Stoddard, in at.
, tempting to commit such trespass made
an assault upon the defendant with a
deadly weapon or by his acts threaten
ed so to do, and the defendant thought
that it was necessary for him to use q
deadly weapon to repel such assault
or threatened assault. and he honestly
and in good faith believed there was
; imminent danger of great bodily injury
: at the hands of the deceased, and that
il was necessary To shoot the deceased
! in order to save his life, or to protec