Barber County Kansas
|
Barber County Kansas |
|
G. M. Martin, attorney for W. L. Maddox who is charged with assault with intent to kill, was at Hazelton last Wednesday to represent his client at the preliminary hearing. Mr. Maddox was bound over to the district court for trial in October on a bond of $1000. From what we are able to learn there are two sides to the case. Mr. Maddox in the heat of passion beat T. C. Bridge severely with a pitchfork and broke his arm in two places and bruised him other wise but he did not penetrate his body with the prongs of the fork. His defense is that Mr. Bridge was the aggressor and that he acted in self defense. The trouble arose over some wheat belonging to Maddox, which was carried into Bridge's pasture by high water.
The Barber County Index, October 21, 1903. District Court
State vs. Walter MaddoxThe case of the State vs. Walter Maddox who was charged with assault with intent to kill, was tried on Friday and Saturday. The jury failed to agree and were discharged on Sunday morning after having been out all night. When Judge Gillett discharged them seven were for conviction for assault and battery and five favored conviction for assault with intent to do great bodily harm. None favored conviction on the first account of assault with intent to kill. On the first ballot, two favored acquittal on all counts.
This is the case which comes from Cedar township. The trouble occurred in July. T. C. Bridge is the prosecuting witness. He and Mr. Maddox are neighbors. There was a flood about the time of the fuss and in it some of Maddox's wheat was carried into Bridge's pasture. Bridge had heard that Maddox accused him of stealing the wheat and this started the trouble.
What followed is not agreed upon by the parties but anyway in the fracas Maddox beat Bridge quite severely with a pitchfork and broke his arm. Bridge and Maddox tell different stories as to the preliminaries leading up to the fight. Bridge says he went over to Maddox's field where he was at work to reason the wheat proposition, that Maddox cussed him as soon as he (Bridge) spoke and came toward him in a threatening manner with the fork. He admits striking the first lick, but otherwise he says he did nothing and Maddox beat him into insensibility besides breaking his arm and otherwise bruising him.
Maddox, however, tells a different story. He says Bridge came to him while he was hauling wheat from his field in an abusive manner, that he offered to show Bridge where his wheat had washed into his (Bridge's) pasture, and where the wheat had been laying, that Bridge cursed him, using the favorite epithet in usual word warfare, that he (Maddox) returned the epithet and that Bridge then struck him violently on the side of the head with his fist. His ear was cut and he bled inside the ear. He then struck Bridge with his fork two or three times. He said he did not know at the time that the arm was broken and had no intention of doing anything except defend himself.
From the evidence it is clear that Bridge was the aggressor and it is also clear that he very likely went to Maddox to find trouble. It is clear too that Maddox lost his head beat Bridge much harder than it was necessary to do, that he was very angry and did what he would not have done in his sober moments. It was very unfortunate that he had a pitchfork in his hands at the time. On the other hand there is no doubt that if Bridge had the fork instead of Maddox, the latter, instead of the former would be nursing a crippled arm.
Messrs. Bridge and Maddox are excellent citizens. It is very unfortunate that they have gotten into this trouble. The sensible and proper thing for them to do is get together and settle their differences and live peaceably and neighborly.
The following persons composed the jury:
E. L. McCracken
Wm. Shutts
G. T. Evans
Henry Warnstaff
F. C. Stone
Olaf Olson
J. H. Marshall
A. D. Baldwin
G. F. Willan
F. C. Colborn
T. M. Kidd
J. Q. WheatA. L. Nobel and J. N. Tincher prosecuted and G. M. Martin and E. Sample defended.
As a result of this case J. B. Best of Hazelton came near getting into trouble. He was a witness for the defense and was here the day before he was needed. That night he went home and was not on hand the following morning. In response to a demand for his appearance by a deputy sheriff, he stated that he was sick and would not come. This did not please Judge Gillett very well and he ordered an attachment issued forthwith. When the deputy sheriff got here with him late Saturday night the case had been submitted and he was not wanted so far as his evidence was concerned, but Judge Gillette reprimanded him and fined him a sum amounting to the costs of serving the attachment. Afterwards, however, he was more merciful and remitted the fine. Mr. Best did not realize the enormity of the offense and will probably be careful not to repeat the mistake. He is a hard working man and his wife is in poor health. He was not well himself but not too sick to obey a subpoena.
-- The Barber County Index, October 21, 1903.
Thanks to Shirley Brier for finding, transcribing and contributing the above news article to this web site!
|
|
|