White Pine news. [volume] (East Ely, Nev.) 1920-1923, 1923-02-25

ments. The first one of tbrae-eiv-
teenth of an inch is a Green and tho
second OF half'an inch Is a greater
creep, far more SO in both cases than
d creep-trigger rife. And in addi-
ton to all these circumstances tho
gun Is exceedingly hard on the trip-
ger. To sum up the whole dascr;n.
ZION IL may be said that the gun could
not be fired in the eramped position
OF the hand claimed by the woman
N only way a person could shoot
hlmself with 1t and have the bullet
range In the direction that this ono
aid would be to pull the trigger with
his thumb.
Inc gun was taken into the Jury
room and on the jury was an expert
on guns. ii. II. Stevenson. the iuror
IN question. has said nothing about
II since, but 1t Is not questioned that
ne did the natural thing of examin-
ing the workings OF the gun and ey-
planning them in detail to the other
Jurors, accompanying such explana-
Ton by a demonstration. The pun
Is In the hands of Deputy County
CLERK George p. Armand, who Il a
gun expert also. He was Thorough
~ familiar with the workings II this
gun before the trial but considered
II a 1t was not his place to speak
until spoken to. The weapon be-
longed to Mrs. Frank Buster. the
states star witness, but it Is not
customary TO give guns back to their
owners after being used to commit
murder, and she seemed to know
this and did not ask for 1t.
Mrs. Buster left here the morning
after the trial was over, saying she
was going 10 join her husband at
Las Vegas. from whence they came.
Persons who heard the testimony
OF both her and Mrs. Williams were
unanimous in remarking that both
OF them had been on the witness
stand before. In this respect Mrs.
- AAadl iht UNlNSi BLUM llE. o0t
is more intelligent and naturally was
more composed. Both testified to
exactly what they wanted to say and
were not confused or caused TO con-
tradict themselves In the slightest
detail
Mrs. Buster, too. showed her prob
able previous experience in court. or
at least in the spotlight. in another
way. With all Of the unfayorable
newspaper publicity that she receiy-
ed she IL not known to have COM
planned TO a soul, other than 10 say
that she was nervous and FESTIVE
here on account of the shooting. She
was engaged In writing for
moving pictures and is known to
have sent away one or more prior to
the shooting. She claimed TO be no
novice at IL.
The sentence Of Mrs. Williams to
serve an indeterminate period of one
TO ten years was pronounced by
McFadden Tuesday afternoon.
Monday, when she vas TO have been
sentenced, Attorney V. II. Vargas, in
her behalf. moved for a new trial.
Mr.. Edwards resisted the motion on
the ground that no notice had been
but the court allowed the mo-
ton.
The motion was based on four
points-that the verdict was con-
trary 10 law; that Il was contrary To
the evidence; that the court had
erred In giving n special instruction
TO the jury in case of the accused
testifying In her own behalf; that 1t
erred in an instruction as to circum-
stances in mitigation.
Mr. Vargas claimed the first of
he two instructions eonficted with
4 late statute prohibiting special in
strnclions in case of the accused tes-
In the course of his tax
Mr.. Vargas took occasion TO %reiter-
ate his words 10 the jury, minus the
l|nprintable e%pithets, Let him lie
Judge McFadden announced from
he bench at the close of the address
hat he did not believe there was any
merit IN the alleged error of his in
struetions.
Mr.. Ewards in opening his address
asked the court To make a ruling on
he matter of notice of motion. The
court said Il would allow this mo-
ion but indicated that In the future
should be filed in writing
Il am willing to leave this mat
.er of granting a new trial to the
conscience of the court said Mr.
Edwards. He quoted from the stat
ite TO show that the court could not
grant a new trial on an error In the
Instructions unless substantial JUS
Ice TO the accused had not been
lone. The testimony and all the
A