"More
Legal Discussion."
"In
the Halstad Reporter of Feb. 6 appears an article signed by
N. T. Moen, which I think no more than right to answer. Moen
says that after a jury of 12 men had taken their solemn oaths
to do justice they talk about more cheek than a government
mule. How can you be so stubborn, Mr. Moen? Was you not at
the trial? Don't you remember the juryman, Martin Brown
who under solemn oath said that he had been on the first
jury; knew all about the case and had formed an opinion which
could not be removed by evidence; that he could not and would
not decide the case impartially, and when I, as defendant
who according to law was entitled to a fair and impartial
hearing, kindly asked to have said juryman dismissed you
frankly objected. And that man Friday from Hendrum, whom you
had been hunting for one solid week, while court was open all
the time, sustained your objection. Why did you not allow me
a fair trial, Mr. Moen? You say: Why do we establish courts
of justice? Why was it that four of the jurymen, who had been
on the first jury, and who was so closely connected with the
last case, should be on the other case? Why should you have
to use the same jury when you had the whole township and
village to select a jury from? Mr. Houske was on both juries
and he explained it like this: That in the first case he
dismissed Berg because he had not had much experience as a
juryman and would not go against the majority, and in the
second case he thought that when Berg was dismissed some one
had to be guilty. The man went so far as to say that if he
had not been on the first jury he should have found me not
guilty. He must have gained experience very quickly. He did
not look much at the majority this time. Brown and he hung
the jury for twelve hours and then did not give up. Don't
you think, Mr. Moen, that an explanation from Mr. Houske
would have sounded more reasonable if he had said just about
like this: 'I have promised Moen, Furuseth & Co. that if
I get on the jury I will agree to find Mr. Larson guilty
regardless of the evidence.' * * * I will tell you that
if you should ever get any experience in law, you will often
find that a jury does not decide a case strictly according to
law. Now, after this jury agreed two to ten in my favor, you
sent Mr. Berg, who had favored you in every point, over to me
to ask if I was willing to leave it to him. I said I would
not leave it to him, but was willing to leave it to J. W
Johnson, a man who is known all over the country to be one of
the most honest and straight men. But no; rather than leave
it with a justice that cannot be bribed in open court, you
would drop it without trying it at all. Mr. Moen refers us to
a case of over one year ago where he was the complaining
witness. He also refers us to Judge Furuseth's docket
and speaks of Mrs. Ford, the only disinterested witness in
the case. But why did you summon Nels Helgeland and John
Sulerud? or what side did they favor as long as you cannot
count them with the disinterested. I have always told Mr
Moen that he knew very little law, and much less common
sense. I have often said that if I say anything I can give a
reason for same or take it back, and I hope right here that I
can give a reason for what I have said to Moen. I remember
well that I was arrested by Mr. Moen, as he said and brought
before Judge Furuseth. Moen asked for an adjournment in order
to get disinterested witnesses, and I suggested that we
should go ahead and have a test case. If we both told the
truth we would not need any witnesses, and this Moen excepted
to, but he did not testify the same way. We had some
witnesses who corroborated me, but that was not disinterested
witnesses. The judge then told Mr. Moen that there was not
enough evidence to hold me. Moen accordingly summoned the
good, solid, honest and disinterested witnesses, and among
them was this model Mrs. N. D. Ford. But remarkable enough
Moen and I have disagreed so many times, but in regard to the
witnesses we agreed to the dot. I think Mrs. Ford was an
honest, disinterested witness and told the truth every word
she said. But right here is where Moen shows his small common
sense, when he refers to Mrs. Ford and Furuseth's docket,
which I will refer to as well as Moen. Mrs. Ford corroborated
me with every word she said, except one place, and that was
where Moen asked me how long time it was from the time I
ordered him out till I laid hands on him to move him out. I
think I said half a minute, but I also said that I ordered
him out two or three times. The first time I spoke in a
common voice, but when it appeared to me that he was somewhat
deaf I spoke louder the last time. Mrs. Ford said that it was
about two seconds from the time she heard that I ordered him
out till I laid hands on him, and Moen said it was no time at
all. It also appeared that Mrs. Ford had not paid any
attention to our conversation until I spoke in a louder voice
than common. Not one of all the rest of the witnesses
materially changed my evidence at all, and will challenge
Moen, Furuseth & Co. with the docket or anything else. I have
often had disputes with Moen when the questions could be
decided, and in order to get some satisfaction out of him I
have offered to bet him, but he says I always tried to bluff
him with money when I know he has none, but now in order to
give Moen fair play I will invite him out on a wheelbarrow
ride. Now, if Moen can show by the docket or any other way
that I lied in that case or any other case, I will be the
horse, and if not we'll reverse the matter. And if I
cannot prove that Moen lied I will be the horse. The case
went on and the judge was very careful to enter on his docket
all the proceedings. The evidence of all these disinterested
witnesses were just the same as mine, with the exception of
Mrs. Ford, in the time between two seconds and half a minute;
that is, if I did not order Moen out more than once. I
understood that I had no show in Furuseth's court. I did
take advantage of a technical law point, and moved to dismiss
the action on the ground that I was not offered a jury. This
was quite a surprise to them, but the judge was a little
quicker to think, and explained it such that I was smart
enough to ask for a jury if I wanted one, but I gave them to
understand that the law was such that a defendant should be
offered a jury, which the judge seemed to believe. But at
once the judge took a second thought...
