|Paper||Utah County Democrat|
|Rights||No Copyright - United States (NoC-US)|
|Publisher||Digitized by J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah|
|Article Title||Fourth District|
|Paper||Utah County Democrat|
FOURTH DISTUICT. PROCEEDINGS IN THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT. What Judge Duscnborry lias Been Doing Since Our Last Issuo-Poul-son Patrlcido Caso Dci'cndnut Is Found Not Guilty Verdict Meets With General Approval. 8ATUKDAY. Court resumed tho caso of James P. Poulson this morning. Tho first witness wit-ness called by tho defense was Mrs. Mary Hacker. Her evidence ns re-spcotcd re-spcotcd tho rotation ol defondunt and his fathor was orguod ns to Its validity. Court ruled that it bo allowed. Sho tostiflod that on a certain occasion fifteen fif-teen years ago, that Mr. Marnitz Poulson Poul-son asked tho defendant to get sumo flrowood. rjofondant did so, but sonio of tho pieces woro too long, for which reason tho father became Infuriated and struck tho boy in tho faco with his fist. Sho testified also that she heard tho deceased at ono tlmo tbroatun tho dofendant with a pitchfork, telling him it he over crossed his path again ho would "fix" him. Josoph II. Armstrong, of American Fork, was tho noxt witness caliod. Ho testified that he was not personally acquainted with tho dofendant, but I had understood, generally, that ho had ' n good roputation; and also testified ho knew nothing regarding his father or his reputation. On cross-examination, testified that ho tiuvor had talked with dofondant and knew nothing of him oxcopt through hearsay. A. W. Mlllor of American Fork, testified tes-tified that ho bad known tho defendant defend-ant for flftcon or sixteen yoars, and that his reputation was good and that tho refutation of tho father was bad. Mr. Jepporson of Pleasant Grove, testified that he had soon tho fathor thrash his son, but this was about seventeen sev-enteen years ago when tho dofendant was a boy, and that from that tlmo until tho parricide nothing of this nature na-ture had occurred that ho .know of. Nells Poulson, brother of dofondant and 20 yoars of age, was called next. Ho tostiflod that ho had lived with or near his fathor during tho wholo of his life; that the reputation of his fathor was bad whll ho wub in certain moods; that ho had heard him mako threats of vlolenco to his brother and also saw hlrn do violonco to hlra. Ho rolated that once his brother was lylug on tho loungo sleeping. Ills father requested re-quested him to go to bod, but his brother, being hard of hearing, did not hear tho request nnd dldn't move. His father then seized him violently and stood him on his feet. Ills brother demanded uf his father tho oauso of tho sovoro treatment, at which tho father struck him in tho facn, making his noso bleed and knocking blm against tho door; that tho fathor had threatened threat-ened to give tho dofendant a good "licking" slnco tho defendant got married becauso of a monoy debt; that tho defendant's father is u larger and stronger man than tho defondunt; that on the ovonlng of tho tragody ho wont to his father's bedroom and removed tho loads from tho gun, which was shown to tho jury, and which ho previously pre-viously testified to as bulng a double-barrel double-barrel breech-loading shotgun. Tho question as to tho motive of Niels Poulson's romoving tho loads was argued by counsels to great length. The motlvo of removing was notal-lowod notal-lowod to bo given on thoTground's of irrelovency, incompetency and bolng immaterial. Nols Poulson was again put on tho witness stand. He testified that tho defendant was naturally timid; that shortly after tho tragedy tho do-fondant's do-fondant's left car was cut and his right tomplo bruised; that ho -hud a conversation with tho dofondant twenty minutes bafore ho wont homo to take sholls out of tho gun, It bolng about four hours after tho quarrel took place, Tho delondant, James 0. Poulson, was noxt put on tho stand. Tho defendant de-fendant was very nervous, and In answering questions, spoko in a very low volco, so that only tho Jury, tho judgo and counsel got the full subject of his answers. Tho defonduut'a wifo and slstor wopt bitterly whon ho. took the stand. Defendant's testimony; Ho testified that ho was 81 yoars old last Mny and had lived most of his llfo with his fathor; that ho had a wife and four children, Statod that tho final troublo was ovor soma monoy ho borrowed at tho tlmo he got married, and that ho had not boen able to pay It back; that ho mot his fathor tho morning of his trouble, spoko" to him but had no nnswor; that later on that morning ho Joluqd. his' futber up town, and in company with him wont to American Fork. In tho ovonlng, whon ho hud returned from Amorican Fork ho wont up to his father's place to got a saddle On approaching tho burn ho hoard his father cull, but ho was not posltlvo whothor or not it was to him, and accordingly turned and looked back, and ns ho did so his father culled to him from tho west barn door: "Couio hero, I want to talk to you, you dirty stinker, " Ho wont to tho barn door whero his father was and leaned ngalnst the ham. His father nsked him when ho would settle "that" doht, nddlug that If ho didn't do It right away ho would suo him. Defendant said that If that was tho only way to sottlo ho had better bet-ter do It. At this his fathor struck him on tho left stdo of tho head, and ralsod the shovol to strlkn him again but ho caught the handle and succeeded succeed-ed In wrenching tho shovel from him. His father decided ho would go to tho houso, got his gun and "llx" hlni. Thinking ho would carry out his threat, tho defendant followed him to tho houso, bolng four or flvo feot behind be-hind him. As defendant's fathor took hold of tho wlro door to ontor, tho dofendant do-fendant struck at hlni, but hittlug tho door frame, the shovol was turned edgeways and Inflicted a sovoro wound on his fathor's hoad, and as ho was falling struck him again uccross tho neck or on the shoulders. Defendant says that it was his intention to prevent pre-vent his father from gottlng tho gun by disabling him, but not to kill him. 'After having felled his father, ho ran back to tho barn, opened tho south barn gatos and looked for tho saddle, then turned north, en to red north side gate and came out north end of barn. At this point ho looked up to tho porch and saw his father on ins hands and knees. He then went north to tho slreot, turned to tho oast and walked to the end of tho block; doliberately crossod tho street north and walked back down tho strcot on tho opposite stdo of tho street from tho ono ho wont upon. Ho mnt Clarenco Gaininot, his uophew, who informed or indicated to him tho nature of his father's wounds. Going ovor to tho north gates that lead into tho yard, Intending to go see his fathor, ho entered, but his mother and others motioned to him to go back. lie did so. Wont homo. In tho evening his slstor came to his homo und told him of his father's serious seri-ous condition. Ho immediately sont for Dr. Noycs of Amorican Fork.' Further ovldonco wcut to show that dofoudant had had soyoral quarrols, and personal encounters with his fattier. Tnat onco ho boat his father severely with a ruck stake; another Instanco whoro his father was tho aggressor, ag-gressor, ho struck him several times with apples. MONDAY. Tho court Monday morning rosumod tho Poulson patrlcido caso. The defendant de-fendant was iigain put on tho stand and gave furthor testimony in rogard to troublo betwoon father and son, oven testified to troublo whon with his father when only flvo yours old. Ho : also testified that ho had hoard of his father running after a younger brothor and sticking a pitchfork in his back. Ho was also told his fathor had struck his mother In tho faco and knocked hor unconscious. IIo testified also that ho did not tmvo in mind his formor ill trcatmont from his fathor at tho tlmo ho hud his last trouble. Mrs. Poulson, motnor of tho dofendant, dofend-ant, testified that her husband had nlwaya abused tho defendant. Sho had soon him stnko James In tho faco and oven chase him with a Icnlfo. That tho deccasod would strike tho dofendant do-fendant without any provocation. Sho tostiflod that there was a loaded gun in tho houso at tho tlmo Of tho last trouble. Tho two daughters of tho deceased stated on tho witness stand that Jamos 0. Poulson has a roputation for pence-fuluess. pence-fuluess. whllo tholr father tho con trary repumwon. Tho nftornoon was consumed in tho counsel malting tholr argumonts and In Instructing tho Jury. D. D. Houtz uiado tho argumont for tho dofonso, and S. A. Xing for prosecution, Tho instructions to tho jury woro very lengthy and comploto, After Instructions Instruc-tions were given jury adjourned. FIN ty-flve minutes after .udjournmont It roturnod and J. G. McCuno, foreman of tho Jury, read tho verdict, having-found having-found tho dofondant "not guilty." In tho caso of tho State vrf, Poulson tho prosooulion was represented by county attorney, S. A. Klt'g, assisted by Grant 0. Bugloy. Tho oauso of tho dofendant was represented by Messrs. Warner & Houtz, of Provo, and tbo successful verdlot in favor or Poulson after a three days' light speaks woll for the ability of this well-known firm. Thevordict was received wlthgreutsat-isfaction wlthgreutsat-isfaction by tho people acquainted with tho caso, nnd particularly by tho family of tho dofendant and his victim. Monday nftornoon tho caso of Paul Slowart of Lchl, charged with fornication fornica-tion with ono Miss Abblo King, alleged to have boon committed on 00th day of April, 1808, nt Amorloan Fork, wan brought up and jurors compauolcd to try tho caso. Court adjourned till Tuesday at 10 o'clock. Tho caso was continued during Tuesday and Tuos-duy Tuos-duy ovonlng and wont to tho Jury Wednesday morning. Thq jury camo in this nftornoon and reported their Inability to ngroe, standing three for conviction nnd thrco for acquittal. Tho Jury was discharged, dis-charged, WKDNESDAT, Nelson Brothers vs. 0. II. Frank. Motion to ttlo nmoudud answer grautcd. ' It. I). Swaoy vs. F. W. 0. Hathon-bruck Hathon-bruck ot nl, caso continued and placed at tno end of the calendar. Judge Johnson In chambers heard tho caso of Adiiui Anderson vs. B. Clnff, Jr., and rendered judgment in favor of tho plaintiff for 801.75, intor-ijst intor-ijst and costs. Owing to tho postponement of the caso of Swasoy vs. Hiithonbruck, Judge Johnson of tho Sixth district who was to try tho caso, will return today to Spring City. Tho uppcal in tho caso of Lehi City vs. T. J. Wadsworlh was fllod last Wednesday. Tho caso Is sot for Saturday.