, 1926-02-03

murder without capital punishment
Foight.
The supreme court. in handi
26th. in its opinion, written by Ju
albert Lampitt, the plaintiff In
error, hereinafter referred to as
the defendant, was convicted by a
jury of murder in the first degree
without capital punishment, for
causing the death of n Harry
Foight. Judgment was rendered
on the verdict combining the defen-
dant in the penitentiary for life.
and he brings the case here by
proceedings in error
1.-THE main error assigned in the
case is that the verdict and judg-
ment are not sustained by the evil
dence. 1t will, accordingly, be nee
essary to review the testimony. On
account of the gravity of the case,
we have carefully gone over the
record. 1t cover we'll over one
thousand typewriter pages. and in
order to retain this opinion within
reasonable compass IL will only be
possible to give a brief outline of
the testimony. but it must not be
thought that we have not given
careful consideration to all the facts
and circumstances in this case,
though perhaps not specifically men
toned herein. The jury were war
ranted in finding the facts herein
after mentioned, though the testi-
mony on some of the points was
conflicting"
Justice Blume then gives a brief
resume of the evidence in the case,
as to the description and location
of the buildings of the camp at
Grass creek, and then says: 1.-THE
explosion referred to occurred about
1 o'clock on the morning of May
Z. 1921. 1t and the fire succeed
the bunk house in question, killed
Foight, the deceased, and Worley
Seaton. and injured the other ocu-
pants of the building. For about
five feet each way from the north
east corner of the bunk house. the
foundation was completely broken
and part of it ground almost to
dust. The rest of the foundation,
while injured and broken. was not
entire north end Of the bunk house
was blown to pieces and many
splinters and other fragments were
scattered about in the neighborhood
within a circumference of 800 feet
away. Some of the debris fell on
the roofs of the adjacent buildings,
a distance of 100 feet away. A
nail was driven clear through the
south and north walls OF the ad-
of the bunk house. A barrel stand
ing on the porch thereof was cut
In two. The porch was wrecked.
A steel trunk in the compartment
occupied by the deceased was brok-
en- into pieces. People in the i'm
mediate vicinity of the scene of the
explosion were thrown from their
beds. Fuse was found, as herein
after mentioned, in the early morn
ing of May Z; the powder magazine
situated about one-half mile west OF
the bunk house, was found to have
! been rifled; suspicion, on account
of other matters hereinafter refer
red to, centered on the defendant,
and he was arrested at about $3.50
of the forenoon of that day as the
party suspected to be guilty of
causing the explosion.
II. 1t is the contention OF the
state that dynamite or nitroglycer-
in or both were planted by defend
ant under the building, at the north
east corner thereof. and exploded
by means of a fuse used by the de-
PENDANT for that purpose. The de
PENDANT, on the other hand, con-
tends that there was a leakage or
gas from the plugged up gas pipe
hereinbefore mentioned, which ex-
ploded accidentally at a time OF
low atmospheric conditions. Ana
the first question. therefore, to be
determined is as to what sort OIL
explosion took place. Much testi-
mony was introduced on this point
by both sides. and the main con-
troversy centers around: Cd The
finding of fuse, CD The character
of the burns on the persons killed
and injured, and go The charac-
ter and effect of the explosion In
Sgeneral."
Then follows a brief resume of
the evidence by the defendants
witnesses, who testified to the ma
ture of the explosion, and the ex-
pert witnesses in reference to why
the explosion could not have been
by natural gas and cause the de-
struction of a building and founda-
ton in the manner hat 1t did, also