The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1913-01-24
CIRCUIT COURT
NOW IN SESSION
Judge Brideman of the
Berrien County Circuit
Is Presiding.
BUT ONE CASE DURING WEEK
John l.. no.gsr1 of Bloominedale Is
Charged with Assault with In
tent to Murder.

Judge Des Voignes and Judge Bridg-
man of the Berrien circuit exchanged
woolsaoks this week. The entire time
of the court during the week has been
occupied in the trial Of the case Of the
People vs. John L. Howard of Bloom
ingdale. The respondent, Howard, is
comparatively newcomer in this county,
being a native southerner. He is charg.
ed with an assault with intent to muir
der The case is attracting a wide de-
gree OF attention, and the court room is
filled to it's capacity at each session OF
the court. The case was begun Monday
and all that day and half the mornipg
session Tuesday was consumed in OBJ
taining jury. The entire panel Of 30
Jurors was exhausted and 20 talesmen
summoned Forty five prospective Jurors
were examined before both sides ex-
pressed thems elves as, being satisfied.
The following named gentlemen were
finally accepted: Warren Langley, Kee-
Ter; f. L. Cady, Decatur; l.. d.. West
gate, South Haven; George Knapp, Law
renee; Caseivs M. Lanning, Decatur;
Joseph Peltier, Paw Paw; Madison B
Keith, Arlngton; Adelbert Mcclure.
Paw Paw; Charles. Dine, Hami ton; r.
l.. Kellogg. Antwerp; &. A. Brown
Paw raw; Waroer Myers, Bloomingdale.
The respondent 10 the case is charged
with shooting and woundIng one M. r.
Burget we'll known and highly res
pected citizen of Bloomingdale. The
circumstances of the shooting, as claim
ed by the prosecution, are substantially
as follows
Burget had made a bargain with the
J lwner of farm on section seven of
| Bioomingdae township TO put in certain
crops on shares Subsequently the owner
of he premises SOLD the place to Mrs.
Bertha Howard, wife of John l.. How
ard Burget claims that Mrs Howard
/ had full notice of his rights in the mat
ter and that he had at { Bes talked with
/ her about his crops aud that she did
not at first object To his harvesting his
crops Mt the proper season, but subse-
queutiy seemed TO change her mind, and
wheu he went on the place Howard or
dered bim off, an order which ne did not
obey. As soon as tbs bay crop vas fit
]
ard began to cut it, claiming that it be-
Ionged to the place and that Burget
had no right to any part OF it. Burget
went on the place with mis- team and
loaded up such portion OF the hay as he
claimed belonged &C. him, aud as he was
passing along the public highway, How
ard appeared aud shot him with shot
gun. There is 70 dispute as to the
shooting, bUt fortunately the injury ia.
fiicted did not prove to be dangerous
1t is claimed by the defense that the
respondent was justified IN the shooting
aud that be was simply defending his
property, as be had right to do. Tweu-
ty-one Witnesses we're sworn and exam-
ined by the people snd four, Including
lhe respondent himself for the defense.
The testimony was concluded at noon
Thursday, and in the afternoon argu-
meuts we're made and the case submitted
to The jury. in whose hands the matter
rests a; the time we go to press.
Prosecutor Burhans and Lewis, his
assistant, conducted the case for the
People, and w. j. Barnard defended.
After the shooting affray, Burget sued
out a writ Of injunction to prevent tho
interference Of the Howards and SO sue.
ceeded in completing his harvest and
retaining what he claimed as his share
OF the crops.