The Hartford herald. [volume] (Hartford, Ky.) 1875-1926, 1922-05-10
MARVIN SHIELDS ON
TRIAL FOR MURDER
Killed Watt Panney January 9th;
"Unwritten Law" Defence;
Much Civil Business.

crowd to town Monday on account
of the trial of the case of the Com
monwealth VS.. Marvin Shields
which was set for that day. Shields
was indicted. at the March term for
murder. He shot and killed Watt
Ranney on or near his (Shields)
premises near Cromwell on January
9Th. last.
When the prosecution was called
for trial Monday morning both
sides announced ready. Considera-
BILE difficulty was encountered in Sc
lecting a jury, but just before the
noon hour the twelve good men and
true in whose hands was to rest
the fate of young Shields, were
duly impanneled and sworn. The
following is the personnel of the tu-
ry: Henry Dever, ]. l.. Patton.
Luther King, owen Lee, ]. H. Haz-
elwood, Homer Lindley, S. T. Bar
nett, Ira Moseley, d. M. Park, F.
Bidwell, George Armstrong and
j. M. Westerfeld. After a.
demurrer to the Indictment
had been overruled, the case was
stated for both sides and the hear
ing of the evidence begun. BY
having a night session Judge Will
son was able to have the Common
wealth complete its evidence in
chief Monday. Most of yesterday
was consumed with the testimony
of the defence. About the middle of
the afternoon the taking OF testi-
mony was completed and Judge VII
son instructed the jury. Argument
of counsel then began, and was COM
pleted at 6 O'Clock, when the case
was given to the jury. 1t was
thought probable that another night
session would be u held to give the
jury an opportunity for deliberation.
Shields claims that there had
been improper relations between
his wife and his victim. Trouble,
of which the homicide was the
elimination, had been brewing for
some time. The evidence of the Com
monwealth tends to show that
Shields had armed himself especial
ly for the fatal encounter, which he
anticipated despite warnings to
Ranney to desist from his atten-
tions to Mrs. Shields, given by HIM
self and others. The evidence also
tends to show that Ranney was
shot twice with a shotgun loaded
with slugs or buck-shot, once in
the chest and once in the back Of
the head.
The defence of Shields is of a
triple nature,-self defence, the
so-called "unwritten law" and in
sanity. The case has aroused great
interest and discussion especially
in the Cromwell country. Neigh
borhood sympathy seems to be
somewhat divided. The prosecu-
tion is being conducted by Com
monwealth"s Attorney Glover H.
Cary, County Attorney o. G. Mar
tin and Attorney G. M. Grove. The
defendant is represented by, Attor-
neys w. H. Barnes. G. E. Smith. NJ.
L. and Cecil Heavrin.
Since our last report-the follow
ing householders have reported and
been accepted for Jury service; w.
M. Fair. II. B. Martin. ]. w. Dam
iel, Hiram Miller. T. F. Tanner. E.
p. Brown, l.. NARROW, Ira Moseley,
Warren Taylor. Mason Taylor and
s. ID. Bosket.
The following is a summary OF
the most important civil business
disposed of since our last issue:
Charles Lunsford VS.. George B.
Kirkwood. peremptory instructions
for defendant; M. L. Heavrin. &C.
VS.. Claud Graves. dismissed with
out prejudice; A. A. Carter w.
Charles N. Gould, &C., set forward
to the Sth. day; Louanna Rowan &C.
VS.. Beaver Dam Coal Co., continued
by agreement; Robert Burden VS..
Ohio County Farmers Nut. Tel. Co.,
continued by agreement; A. M. Fox
VS.. L. & N. r. r., continued by
agreement; j. w. Foster. &c. VS..
H. z. Milligan, &C., set forward to
the eth, day; Mabel Shaver VS.. Sam
Shaver. Judgment for diyorce;. NJ
M. Smith. &C., VS.. Joyce-Watkins
Co., set forward to 9th. day; J. L.
LeGrand vs. Harold Holbrook, &C.
peremptory Instructions for defend
ant; John r, Mitchell VS.. Mona
Mitchell. judgment for divorce;
Naomi vinson vs.. Charles B. Vim
son, judgment for divorce from bed