The Idaho recorder. [volume] (Salmon City, Idaho) 1886-1927, 1914-07-02

HEARING

The preliminary hearing OF Watts
"addington vs.. VIM. Patton, two
ranehers on Clrmen creek, was neld
before Judge McCracken Tuesday
OF this week. The trial began at 10
a. 10. and lasted through the entire
day. The trial was the result uf q,
diniculty some weeks ago between
the two parties over the burial of A
hog. The plaintiff, Naddington, xas
having a hole dug In which TO bury a
hog. The hole was being dug with.
in few feet OF the line between his
Held and the field Of the defenda I.
VIM. Barton. Mr.. Barton objected
to the hog being buried 30 close 10
his place, as Mr.. Waddington had
had sickness among his hogs and he
was afraid Of his own hogs becoming
infected. They had words and il
ended In Mr.. Barton striking Mr..
Waddington with an irrigatlng shoy.
ell and breaking his arm.
The principal witnesses for the
state we're Mr.. Waddington and Hans
Walchi, who was formerly In the em :
ploy OF Mr.. waddlngton and vas dig
ging the hole wh~n the trouble be-
gan. The prosecution was brought
on the evidence OF the afidavitS Of
the two men whichh had been made
cut by the county attorney ana then
sworn to before Judge McCracken.
Mr.. Walchi in Ills atfidavit said in
substance, that MIR. Barton was the
one Who caused the trouble, that he
used abusive language to MIR. Wad
dington, told hin to come over 10
the fence and he would cave his
head in and when Mr.. WldIington
went down to the fence TO meet him
then Mr.. Bartcn struck hiu, With
the snnvel and broke his arm
1t was upon this evidence. COM
oined with that OF Mr.. Waddiugton,
which vas in substance the same.
that the state expected to get a con.
viction. But, at the trial. Mr. Wal
Chi told d different story and repudi.
ated all that he had told the county
attorney and probate judge at the
time the complaint was made. soon
after the trouble. Before the court
Tuesday Mr.. Walchi stated that What
he had said in mis- affidavit was not
the truth of the matter and gave I'll
opposite version OF the matter. His
eviderce, in substance. was that Wad-
dinlgon was the aggressor in the con
trOversy. He stated that he had
been hired by Mr. Wlddington to
bury the hog, and when he started tr
dig the hole close To the fence of Mr..
Barton's field, Barton, who was irri-
eating snort distance away, asked
him what he Was doing, and he told
him that he was going to bury the
hog. Mr.. Barton told hin that he
could not d. 1t that close to his line.
at this time, Mr.. Maddlugt ton came
up and tOJk the shovel from MIR.
Wslchi ami threw out few shUyels
Of dirt; ana when Mr. Barton told
him that he could not bury the hoy
so close to his property, be began to
call Barton foul names and accused
MIN Of shooting the bog; told him
that he would ''cave his head la. ''
ect. lie started toward Mr.. Barton,
who Vas on his own grounds a few
feet away, and that IL was when Mr..
Waddlngton was upon MIN on the
other side Of the fence that Mr.. Bar
ton struck him IN self defense. After
the testimony OF Mr.. Walchi was com
pleted the state rested and the coun.
sci fer the defense moved that the
case he he thrown on, OF cIurt on the
lack Of evidence. After considering
the evidence the Judge decided that
there was not sufficient evidence 10
warrant a trial and dismissed the
case.
The defense vas represented by At.
tOrney Cherry. aud County Attorney
o brieD had charge OF the case Tor
the state. lie was assisted by At
tOrney WhitcOmh, Nho vas Mr.. Mad
dingtOn's attorney aud was consulted
before the case vas taken up 10y the
state. Messts. Wsddiugt1u and Wal
chi u ade the same statements 10 Mr..
WhitScopb when tHey consulted
him, ss they made before the couU.y
authorities, and i vas upon these
grounds Attorneys Whiteonh aud
@ Brien brought the case into court