The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1913-07-18

case? .. .
The principal witnesses for the
state were Assistant States At
torney Madden, States Attorney
Maennel, Clerk Of Court Hanson
and Fahlgren, and others Of
minor Importance. at least as to
the main facts to be proven.
Let us take the testimony of
Madden first; he testified that
a certain box in the basement
which contained the indirect
heating radiators had been cut
open after the Anderson house
had been turned over to the at
torneys for the defense or rather
the Anderson relatives. This he
was positive of and no mistake
about it. This box had connec-
ton with the den and by means
OF hot air register to permit the
hot air to pass into room or den as
it is called, and this testimony un-
doubtedly was for the purpose
of convincing the jury that Ander
son after the shooting had thrown
the shell extracted from the gun
into this register which would
fall to the bottom Of the tin box
and that the defense had cut
this box open in the bottom to
get the shell. A child ought to
know that there must be a hole
in the bottom of this box to per-
NIT the air to circulate up through
the register in the floor. Gala
han who had worked in putting in
the box and Howard Miller of
Bismarck the plumber soon dis
proved this statement. The
plumber had cut this box open
last winter, and there was no ques-
ton in the minds Of the jury as
to that fact. Then the testimony
of the states attorney as to the red
lint which was found on only one
ramrod, and that with the aid Of
a glass, but the rods being in evil
dence the jury had no difficulty in,
seeing red lint on three Of the
ram-rods with the naked eye.
Then again the testimony Of Han
son when he admitted that cas-
far as he was concerned they
could cut him, Anderson, into
inch pieces and throw him in the
Missouri river" It seems to us
that Hanson's vindictiveness had
gotten away with his better
judgment and it was not safe to
rely on the testimony Of one whose
feelings were so bitter against
the defendant. And now let us
ask you. another question: If you
were juror and with such testi-
mony and the question of q
fellow beings life depended upon
what weight was to be given such
testimony, what would you dot
The state evidently was aware
Of the fact that they had failed
to make case against Anderson
for Attorney Lawrence practi-
cally admitted as much in his
opening statement, when he said
that when he went to his room
during the noon recess he was in
clined to believe the magnetism OF
Mr.. Bangs and his ingenuity in
assembling evidence would have
led him to support verdict Of
acqufttal were he a juror.
I know we jurors learned Of
many facts concerning this case
after we had brought in our ver-
dict which might have changed
the result in this case had the
same statements been presented
to the jury during the trial by
competent witness under oath;
but let me ask, does the public
expect that a jury is to base q
verdict on street rumors heard be-
fore and after the trial is over,
and let me ask you another ques-
ton, if such statements were true
why were they not brought out
in the evidence9 Does the public
expect the jurors to go out after
the evidence in the case or do,
they rely on the prosecuting of
ficers to present the facts to q
|juryi
Respectfully,
a4 Edward Rnlfsnn