Tombstone epitaph. (Tombstone, Ariz.) 1887-current, 1920-05-02
WEDNESDAY

WEDNESDAY,
That there are two important
phases for the Jury TO consider in
reaching Its verdict as TO the guilt
or innocence of II. Z. Wootton charg.
ed with kidnapping Fred Brown as
the result OF the Bisbee deportation
of July IL 1917, was the substance
of the charge read by Judge Samuel
L. Pattee this afternoon when court
opened after a recess taken from the
morning session for the court TO pre-
pare his instructions.
In substance the court instructed
that the jury first determine wheth-
er the complaining witness. Fred
Brown. was forcibiy or voluntarily
deported and with reference 10 this
phase OF the case said:
'.Wootton cannot be considered 10
have forcibly taken Brown from one
place TO another except as particu-
larry specified in the information and
hence. though the statutes make it
crime to forcibiy take or carry
any person from one part OF the coun-
" ~ A,t t. 81
here charged and of such crime the
defendant cannot be convicted II il
for you to determine from the ev!-
dence here submitted whether the
defendant forcibly took and carried
Brown out of the state
.One who voluntarily goes or per-
mits himself TO be taken or carried
out Of the state by reason OF refus-
ing to withdraw when given such
opportunity is not forcibly taken and
in such case the crime of kidnapping
is not established. II al any stage
OF the proceeding before the taking
Of Brown into New Mexico he had
reason to withdraw from the body Of
men being deported his going is not
forcible unless failure TO avail HIM
self OF such opportunity was due to
fnh he
not bound to accept. because it was
induced by fear.
IF You have reasonable doub,
after a fair and candid consideration
Of the evidence on that subject
whether Brown was forcibly taken
then it is your duty to return a yer.
dict OF not guilty without considera.
ton Of any other question in the
case. On the other hand IL you be-
lieve that the taking of Brown was
forcib!e you must then consider
whether conditions in the Warren
district warranted such action Oh
the part OF the defendant"
The court then discussed the law
Of self defense, which ne instructed
the jury to disregard considering
the necessity of the deportation. In
defining the law Of necessity the
court quoted an authority who says
Necessity is the defense when IL
! is shown that the act charged was
done to avoid an evil both serious
and irreparable, that there was nc
adequate means of escape and tha,
the action was not disproporfionate
TO the evil"
1T Is for the jury to determine
J the court said, whether the condi
tions in the Warren District prior
to July ~. 1917, appeared to be Sc
sciiouS tudL tuc CcpOTtdtiOu wa;
necessary to avert an impending
evil. The I. w. W. organization no,
it's doctrines were not on trial, b,
said and the only purpose for which
evidence concerning their activitie.
should be considered in reaching /;
verdict would be to determine wheth
er or not the threats of violence wer.
merely Idle boasts.
Following the Grading of the charg,
to the jury, the court announced tina
1t having cen agreed by counsel 70
both sides tha: the arguments be con
cluded as soon ~ possible, that ;
night session will be held this eve
ming. The session viii begin at ia
tonight when Geo. Roark. assistan
county attorney VIII make the open
ing statement for the state. He ez
poets to conclude his address to Ii
jury within two hours and . hal
apd tomorrow morning the defsns'
viii open their side Of the argument
l