Year: 1877




to the feelings Of the community or 10 stimu-
late prejudice against the accused. 10 be brought
tn trial while these feelings exist, Is misfortune
Time softens asperiles and tends to promote the
ends Of justice. Histories are not reliable that
are written while the sceLes they chrOI lie
near a. hand. They must be looked at in the
light of time, and of truth. So with men
cu-ed of crime. We must put aside all feelings,
all resenments, and look at the facts. We should
not come with passions towards a party known TO
be guilty, even. There should be pity extended
to such one, rather tnan severity, for who
has been so unfortunate MS to break the laws of
the land. No two human beings are alike; be-
tween the very good and the very bad there
all shades Of gradatiOn-no one is perfect-pertec-
ton is not attained IN this world. la view of
these facts the jurors should examine their hearts
with care and come to a decision in the case with
candor aud fairness.


The time will come when Mr.. Noyes will view
this matter iu entirely different light than at
present. lie stated the difference between this
and civil SUIT. The consequences to the prison
er will be so grave, that if reasonable doubt ex-
lists in the mind OF any juror, he should have the
benefit of that doubt.


The three counts in the indictment were recited !;
under either of the first two, the penalty Is i'm
prlsonment; under the last imprisonment or fine


lie would argue, first, on the last court-the
charge of teonous assault ith deadly weapons
Ii he was justified in making the assault he did,
aud the jury should so decide, there would be the
end of the case. The fact that he fired guns, and
that shot entered the leg of Ohm Flood, no one de-
nies. 1t is curious fact that there seems to be
really no difference in the testimony offered, as to
The facts iD the The evidence is concurrent.
The defendant had stated the honest truth, aud all
must have been convinced that he had told the
whole truth IN the case. The defendant fully be
lieved he had the right to shoot and to protect his
property from trespass. A man has right to
defend his house against ntruders, but to what
extent varies with circumstances. In this case
there was more than a simple trespass. The law
is well settled that when party comes upon an
others premises, using extraordinary means, you
have aiight, under certain circumstances to resort
10 extreme measures. 1t is for the jury to deter
mine whether the force used was proper


Mr.. Noyes went on the premises with force
that irresistible. He took the law into his
own hands just much Gilman did, only he
didn't go quite so far. This land was 10 dispute,
and Mrs. Gilman believed it belonged to her.
Noycs takes possession of the land OF the lone
widow. He was a lawyer and had taken the land I;
she supposed that she could retake il IN the same
way. They were assaulted in this Undertaking.
When Mr.. Noyes returns he again takes the law
into his own hands, and goes to accomplish his
purposes with crew OF men that is irresistible.
What avail would it have been for Gilman to have
gone in person and warned them of Notwth.
standing he used firearms. the fact stands out that
this lawyer with his army insists upon moving the
fence. This man with his force stood his ground
Notwithstanding the firing. 1t was known that
there was to be trouble; it was known that he was
putting up the fence menace. Noyes had
challenged him on, and now with an ali OF injur-
ed innocence he lays all the blame upon Gilman.
He had provoked this thing to satisfy the feeling
of resentment. Now, whether the means used
were appropriate, is for the jury to determine;
whether he made use of unnecessary means to
protect his rights.


Under the fist two counts, the intent to mur-
der or kill is charged. The government must
prove the intent specifically. The fact that Flood
was hit on the leg Is no presumption that he in
tended to hit him 10 a vital part. When shot
kills man, the law implies that it is fair to pre-
sumo that the one who fired it intended to kill
This does not apply in the present case.


The government must satisfy the jury that Gill
man intended IN bis heart to kill Flood. Has this
been proved The fact that he used firearms is
no necessary inference that he intended to kill.
of parties. He was charged in the indictment
with inteat to Kill Flood it must be shown that
he intended to kill Flood and no one else. If he
fired at Noyes with intent to kill and hit Flood,
he would not be guilty of the murder of Flood.
The periofaions in the fence simply proves that
the defendant made preparations to do just what
he says he oid-nothng more. There was not
the slightest purpose to kil and not the slightest
thing would have been gained by it. IL he had
really intended to murder. he would not have made
public the evidence, without any effort whatever
to conceal. Had he wished to kill
them, he could have done so at any time, as he
had practiced with rifle. He asked the jury to
bear in ind the distinction between the counts,
to consider the evidence carefully, and render
their verdict accordingly. Mr.. Pillsbury's argu-
ment lasted little more than an hour and quar-
ter, and listened TO with great attention, the
court room being crowded.


l.. +. Webb, Esq, Comfy Attorney. then made
the closing argument for the government.


lie said he concurred fully in all that had been
said in regard to the motives which should actuate
the jury. There is TO be trial between Mr..
Gilman and John Flood; but the State has an in-
terest in this matter aud steps in. The defend
ant rights are not the only rights to be though.
Of here. He supposed when this affair occurred
that every influence that wealth could bring
would be brought out for the benefit of the
criminal. Shall you discriminate between
the rich and the poorf Is the law strong
and powerful to pick up the weak, and let the
can commit such deeds, planned and premed-
taed, and confessed, and yet the criminal 20 free


He did not agree with counsel that nearness to
the crime was against the administration OF Justice.
lie didn't see why the jury could not decide
the matter when facts we're fresh in the mind. Six
months hence, John Flood may be in his grave.
The defence would not be likely to gain by that.
Physicians have testified that the result is doubtful.


There is no doubt there has been dispute in
regard to the line. The Gllmans were the first
aggtessors. Who first applied force No man
until Charles Gilman on that Thursday. lie gave
the crew of men an indemnity from harm.
There the beginning of the evident intent.
This was transacted IN the absence of Mr.. Noyes.
MIR. Noyes is a lawyer, as Mr.. Pllsbury had said.
He knew his legal rights.


What the punishment shall be is not for the
jury, but for the court TO decide. That does not
enter into the matter at all. You are to say from
the evidence whether the man is guilty or not
guilty.


You will judge something of the intent of the
defendant by the weapons which he used. He re-
viewed the testimony IN regard to the evidence of
intent.


Mr.. Webb detailed the deliberate loading of the
guns, the carefulness 10 know how far they would
carry, putting IN the heavy charges, when the
smaller ones would not do. Gilman was ut that
hole in the fence "for business" 1t almost makes
the blood curdle to hear him tell how deliberately
be got the guns, loaded them and fired the shots.
lie sighted at Noyes and also at Flood. He
shot at them as sportsmen would shoot at birds
For a set purpose, for i'll will this case has not
lately had parallel. For the sake Of little piece
OF fence, he has taken the contract to kill and
slaughter, without the forms of law, and in entire
disregard of law courageous man would have
gone to the spot and warned off the men but like
a coward, as he is, he gets behind fence, and
sends his deadly missiles INTO the bodies of innocent
lsboring men. The poor widow hsd been alluded to,
whose husband at his death lett her with property
OF a million dollars, How much heart must man
have to deliberately do this deed And yet it is
said that he is a conscientious chr ristian man. lie
should call that muscular christianity" 1t was
a code nj mnrala lear nod hy tha dol Mt No