Assault – Higgins Brothers – Vigilante’s Unavenged Blood
Higgins Assault Case
Below is a series of articles about a crazy incident that occurred in 1901, involving the beating of two men who somehow crossed the Higgins brothers, Frank and Arthur, during a late night party in downtown Missoula. At the time, Frank Higgins was Lieutenant Governor of Montana and Arthur was a local game warden. While the politics behind the charges against the Higgins brothers – and subsequent trial – would require more time to unravel than I am currently willing to devote to it, the more interesting thing is a charge made by Frank Higgins at the end of the trial upon Colonel Sanders, the famous prosecutor for the Montana vigilantes. His implied statement that Sanders bore responsibility for the hanging of innocent victims, both at Alder Gulch and Hellgate, is especially significant in light of the declaration by an obscure pioneer writer that one of the victims hanged at Hellgate in 1864 was innocent. See the link to an article written about the hanging of Alec Carter at Hellgate at the end of this article. Frank Higgins was born in Missoula at about the time the Montana vigilante hangings occurred and his father, C. P. Higgins, undoubtedly witnessed some of the hangings, as they allegedly used his corral poles in the process. If Colonel Sanders made any response to this charge the reporter didn’t record it.
Articles found in Edwards Fruit Grower and Farmer
To find these articles digitally go to the following:
1. Dec. 6, 1901- p 21
2. Dec. 20, 1901 – p 5
3. Jan. 3, 1902 – p 6
Higgins Assault Case
Theodore Booth’s Complaint Against Two Higgins’.
Warrants To Be Issued To-Day
Upon Charges Relative to Alleged Attack Saturday Night – Before Judge Houtchens
As the result of the Saturday night trouble in which Theodore Booth, Edward Blockley and T. O. B. Plunkett claim to have been victims of an assault at the hands of Frank G. and Arthur E. Higgins, a complaint charging the Higgins’ with assault in the second degree were [was] last night sworn to by Booth in the court of Justice W. A. Houtchens.
Warrants for defendants’ appearance are to be issued this morning when arraignment will occur.
Case for District
As the case now stands the defendents are accused of committing a felony – being in the present proceedings an assault with weapons. The form of law governing such cases grants defendants the privilege of preliminary examination in justice court to determine whether there is sufficient strength to warrant holding to the action of the district court.
HIGGINS ASSAULT CASE.
Stories of Both Parties in Trouble Given – Assailants Weigh Far The Most.
All day yesterday the assault of Saturday evening upon three business visitors in the city was a topic of general conversation. Two of the assailants since have been identified and have not denied that they took part in the assault. They are Frank Higgins, lieutenant governor of Montana, and his brother, Arthur Higgins. The third man it is believed is known. W. M. Draffen and Col. Thomas Marshall have been engaged by the victims of the attack to push the prosecution.
All Reputable Men.
The story of one newspaper that the assault was well-deserved has no foundation insofar as investigation has gone. The young men that were attacked bear excellent reputations; their conduct since coming here has been irreproachable.
Theodore Booth is district representative for the Globe Tobacco company, of Detroit, Michigan; E. Blockley is here upon special business for his employers, the Risdon Iron Works, a large corporation of San Francisco; and Mr. Plunkett is a mining man at Helena.
Assailants Out-weigh.
Some comment has been caused among friends of the three visitors to the city by the “ring-weight” of the men who took both parts in the assault. Blockley, and Plunkett all are slender men that would average not more than one hundred and forty-five pounds. Both of the Higgins brothers that whipped them in the dark and without warning, weigh in the neighborhood of two hundred pounds and are well-built.
The Higgins men say that they have reasons for their assault and claim that they can substantiate them.
One of their victims gave the following version of the occurrence to the Missoulian representative.
Story of Victim.
“A small company, consisting of Miss Mary Tremblay, Miss McCormick, Miss Higgins, Mr. Booth, Mr. Plunkett, Mr. Blockley and Mr. James E. Hayes with Mrs. Frank Higgins, as chaperone, went to Miss Higgins’ home at the close of the party at the Missoula Bowling club where there were present Lieutenant Kelley of Fort Missoula, and several other persons. After being entertained at luncheon, Mr. Booth, Mr. Plunkett and Blockley escorted Miss McCormick to her home. As they were returning toward the Florence hotel they met three men just after they passed the Hotel Kennedy and were opposite Judge Woody’s house upon the same side of the street.
The Assault.
“Without a word being spoken or any sign of warning, one of the men struck Mr. Blockley and knocked him down. Then Mr. Booth received a blow in the mouth by the fist of Arthur Higgins. He fell toward the ditch not toward the fence, so he did not strike a picket as has been intimated. Before he could get up Frank Higgins jumped upon him and dealt him a blow behind the ear. It seems strange that a wound so deep and serious as to puncture the skull could have been dealt by a naked fist, although I understand that one of the Higgins asserts that no weapons were used. Mr. Blockley was injured upon the nose and cheek bone but his wounds were not serious as they might have been. We are not trained for the prize ring, but neither are we cowards, and we would like to have had some intimation of the assault before it happened. We are determined upon prosecution, and rumor of a settlement is absurd.”
Frank Higgins’ Story
Frank Higgins in interviews does not deny the assault; alleging causes, that if true, furnish a motive. He asserts that improper conduct between members of his family and those attacked was of such nature as to warrant the dealing out of harsh treatment.
Another article about the Higgins’ affair appeared in the Jan. 3, 1902 Fruit Grower and Farmer (see p 6). The digital edition of the Jan. 3 Fruit Grower can be accessed in conjunction with the Dec. 27, 1901 digital edition.
HIGGINS BOYS DISCHARGED
Justice Houtchens Finds Evidence Insufficient to Hold Them to Court
JIM DONOVAN TAKES HAND IN IT [Donovan was State Atty. General]
Reason County Attorney Refused to Enter Complaint of Assault in the Third Degree as Ordered to do by the Court.
At two o’clock yesterday afternoon Justice W. A. Houtchens gave his decision in the preliminary hearing proceedings in which Frank and Arthur Higgins were charged by Theodore Booth with second degree assault. The decision of the court was that from the hearing he considered that no probable evidence to secure a conviction had been adduced; and that the prisoners be discharged. Without pausing the court said that he did consider the case one where a charge of third degree assault would be sustained. Pointing to the county attorney he said:
“Mr. Hall I now order you to prepare and file a complaint charging these defendants with third degree assault.”
The statement of the court was received by an audience that crowded the justice office to suffocation, who without display of feeling listened to the words.
There was a surprise and sensation to follow.
Rising from his chair, Mr. Hall said:
“If it please the court, I desire to say that by a telegraphic message from Attorney General Donovan this morning I am forbidden to appear in any more proceedings against the defendants; and am further instructed to dismiss any charges against the defendants that might now be pending. In the absence of any other instructions from the attorney general I shall refrain from further appearing in the case.”
The announcement was a sensation indeed to the roomful of people. At the completion of Mr. Hall’s remarks Colonel Sanders rose from his seat and said:
“For this action I consider that justice in Missoula has received a rebuke from which it will not soon recover.”
The Colonel spoke further of the case, referring to the state statute covering the offense of an assault, which reads:
“Section 401, Montana codes:
“Third – Willfully or wrongfully wounds or inflicts grievous bodily harm upon another, either with or without a weapon: or,
“Fourth – Willfully and wrongfully assaults another by the use of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce grievous bodily harm.
“Is guilty of an assault in the second degree, and is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than one nor more than five years, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or both.”
Lieutenant Governor Higgins and his brother were gratified over the result and plainly indicated it in smiling countenances. Mr. Higgins stated later his satisfaction, continuing with the statement that it was the only course to pursue.
When asked for a statement as to whether or not the case was now a closed incident, attorneys who have appeared as special counsel for the complaining witnesses answered, “certainly not.” Further information they refused to give, except in the words that every source of justice in the land would be visited until the case had been properly heard and acted upon.
What these courses are is unknown, rumor having it that several avenues for their attempts being open.
For ten hours yesterday afternoon and last evening, before Justice W. A. Houtchens in the room of the district court, a preliminary examination was conducted wherein Frank G. Higgins, lieutenant governor of Montana, and his brother Arthur E. were defendants, charged with assault in the second degree. Brilliant counsel, crowded sessions, and spectacular incidents and oratory made of the proceedings such as will not soon be forgotten. Arthur E. Higgins was not called to the stand to testify. The court reserved decision until two o’clock this afternoon.
Justice Houtchens rapped the court to order at two-fifteen. On the prosecution’s side of the table sat County Attorney Hall, at his side there loomed up the figure of Col. Wilbur F. Sanders, austere in bearing, and Attorney W. M. Draffon. The court announced that subpoenas issued for Dr. T. A. Fitzgerald, Mrs. James Osborne and Jule Hartley had not been served for the reasons that witnesses could not be found. The call of witnesses other than those that had appeared in the trial of the same defendants on charges of third degree assaults, involved from the same encounter, gave notice to the throng of witnesses that in the interim additional testimony would be produced.
The court asked counsel for the state if they were prepared or desired a stenographer to take the testimony. Col. Sanders contended that the statute provided that this be allowed. After considerable controversy H. C. Kennedy was secured to take the testimony for the court. The defense had previously provided themselves with the services of Court Stenographer W. M. Glenny. Further preliminary argument was indulged in over the matter of excluding witnesses not testifying from the court room. This was ordered.
Complainant Testifies
Theodore Booth, the complaining witness, was first called for the prosecution, examination being conducted by Col. Sanders.
Mr. Booth testified that he was twenty-four years of age, and resided in Detroit, Michigan. Coming down to the circumstances of the encounter Mr. Booth said that during the early part of the morning of December 15, himself and companions were at a luncheon given at the home of Mrs. Frank G. Higgins on West Spruce street, that about three o’clock that morning himself, Edward Blockley and T.O.C. Plunkett were making their way toward the Florence hotel, when they were attacked near the residence of Judge Woody on Higgins avenue. There were three members of the attacking party.
“Do you know who attacked you?” asked Col. Sanders.
“I have since identified two of them,” was the reply.
“Who were they?”
“Frank and Arthur Higgins.”
“These two defendants?”
“Yes, Sir.”
“How long before you were attacked and assaulted did you see those who attacked you?”
“It was perhaps ten feet away. I know Mr. Blockley and I were attacked at about the same time.”
Over the latter part of the answer Mr. Patterson took exception, asking for the striking out of the answer for the reason that it was not responsive. There followed a protracted argument by counsel as to what testimony would be permitted under the reading of the complaint and charge there made.
The ruling of the court was that witness be allowed to tell of the circumstances of the assault, as asked.
The Third Man
“Do you know who the third member of the party that attacked you, was?”
“I do not.”
Witness answered when first he noticed the approaching party they had the appearance of rapidly walking toward himself and companions.
“Did the third party join in the assault?”
“Frank and Arthur Higgins, directly; the third party but joined in at the commencement.”
Continuing, witness stated that himself and companions were walking along abreast; noticing the persons approaching they stepped aside that they might pass. This they did not do but struck them as they met.
The question asked as to who was first struck, was objected to by the defense.
Witness answered that Blockley was first struck. This before the court ruled that witness must confine his testimony to what happened to himself. Witness continued:
“Arthur struck me first and I was felled to the sidewalk on my left forearm. I fell with my feet about three feet from the fence, head about four feet. Arthur then stepped away joining Frank near Blockley. I then attempted to rise; was dazed but not unconscious. Both assailants then came back toward me after Arthur had said: (meaning Blockley) “This is not the fellow.” Frank said: “This is the one; kill the s- of b-.” Frank then struck me behind the ear. It was his full intent to do so.”
“What were you doing when they approached you?”
“I was on the ground; attempting to rise.”
“The first blow by Frank was on the mouth, causing the lips to swell out even with the nose.”
“What was the effect of the second blow?”
This was objected to, but by the court witness was permitted to answer the question. The question of the intent being brought up. Col. Sanders, enthused, said that the consequence of an act must be determined by their own intent.
Heard Grating Sound
“The second blow struck by Frank knocked my head to the sidewalk. I could hear the grating of some instrument into my scalp and into the bone.”
“Can you say anything of the laceration or contusion that you received in the assault?”
“By the aid of mirrors I have seen a cut behind the right ear. This is over an inch, nearly two inches, in length.”
At this point the marks of a cut as described by witness were examined by counsel for defense and the court.
“I remained down on the sidewalk perhaps thirty seconds after the last blow was struck. I was somewhat dazed but retaining full consciousness.”
“The encounter occupied a space of about twenty-five feet in diameter. This was with the exception of the distance Plunkett had run to. Doing considerable yelling, Plunkett had gotten to the second corner.”
“From first to last the encounter occupied seven or eight minutes.”
“Did you hear other remarks during the encounter?”
“I heard Frank say to Blockley that he should leave town next morning on the first train, or he would be badly treated. Arthur made the same threats to me and some commands.
“The Higgins boys disappeared when we had gotten to an alley in the block next south toward the Florence hotel where the assault occurred.
“During or before the assault myself or companions had done nothing nor said anything threatening or toward assaulting the Higgins’.”
Col. Sanders then turned the witness over to the defense for cross examination.
Cross examination was conducted by Attorney Patterson with frequent and continued reminders from Lieutenant Governor Higgins.
Booth Cross Examined.
In reply to questions witness stated that during none of the proceedings at the place of assault was he unconscious, that he was lightly dazed but not unconscious; that he heard and felt the instrument cut through the scalp to the skull; that both blows struck him were with the right fist; that nothing was noticed in the hand of Arthur Higgins when he was first struck.
“Did you see any instrument there?” was the next question.
“I saw something in Arthur’s left hand. I am absolutely certain myself that this instrument was a gun. Something protruded from his hand that satisfied me that it was a gun.”
Considerable time was then consumed in the identification of the instrument, and the attitudes and manners shown and assumed. Further questions were asked about witness’ diet and actions while at the hospital and since the encounter. Answers were to the effect that he had been unconscious for several hours after the attack, commencing at about five o’clock in the morning while on the operating table of Dr. Fitzgerald’s office. He had since suffered much headache.
Blockley Called
Edward Blockley was next called.
Witness stated that he was twenty-nine years of age, and a resident of Oroville, Cal., he was engaged in mining, and on the morning of December 15, about three o’clock he, in company with Merrs. Booth and Plunkett, was returning along Higgins avenue opposite the residence of Judge Woody to the Florence hotel from a luncheon given at the home of Mrs. Frank G. Higgins on West Spruce street. At that point three men approached from the south. When within ten or twenty feet he recognized two of the party of which he was a member separated to let the approachers pass. Upon arriving together he was hit and knocked down. At practically the same time he saw Booth struck and knocked to the walk.
“What was said?” he was asked.
“I heard a man exclaim, with a vile oath: ‘That’s the man: now kill him.’ Frank Higgins was the speaker and he referred to Booth. The command to kill was made to Arthur Higgins.”
“Did you see the assault continue?”
“I did. They came at us again, and as we were walking down the street afterwards the command: ‘Now you leave town by the first train tomorrow morning or it will be the worse for you,’ was frequently made.”
“In my judgment the fight lasted seven or eight minutes.
“I heard them tell Booth to leave town or it would be the worse for him; at the same time using vile language, calling us both s – of b – s.”
“How many men were there in the party that assailed you?”
“There were three.”
In response to inquiry witness stated he did not recognize a third party other than the Higgins brothers; nor could say whether or not he remained during the assault.
Witness continued: “After getting on my feet I said: ‘What is this for Mr. Higgins? What have we done to you to deserve this?’ The reply was: ‘You leave town, d – you, or it will be the worse for you.’ Both Booth and myself backed south down on Higgins avenue. Our assailants followed.
Something in His Hand
“Did either of the assailants have a weapon that you saw?”
“I saw Frank Higgins with something in his left hand that I took to be a gun. Frank hit me first. Of the weapon, I saw what I would judge to be about three inches of it.”
Witness described the wounds of Booth to be a severe cut that bled profusely, and continued to bleed for an hour. Himself and others accompanied Booth to the Florence hotel and later to Dr. Fitzgerald’s office that his wounds could be dressed. He remained with Booth there until he was taken to the hospital. Saw Booth faint while on the operating table having his hurt cared for. Witness identified Frank and Arthur Higgins as the assailants. They were the two that he recognized.
Further describing the circumstances Blockley testified that his party were walking along the street abreast; their assailants approached going at a rapid walk. Frank struck Booth, knocking him down – witness was knocked down at nearly the same time. He arose to his feet, reaching for a handkerchief to wipe the blood from his face that had been cut. Frank Higgins said: “Get him; he’s going to get a gun.” With that Arthur struck another blow that sent witness to the ground.
“Plunkett,” witness testified, “had been able to dodge as the assailants came up and ran down the street, screaming at the top of his voice ‘Murder! Police! Help!’ On the part of myself or companions there had been no movement hostile to the Higgins’.”
He Saw a Gun.
Witness was then turned over to the defendant’s counsel for cross questioning.
“What instrument did you see?” was asked.
“I saw a gun in the hands of Frank Higgins. I saw it no later than when Booth was struck. Booth fell upon his left side, where he lay until the struggle was over: attempting to rise was again knocked down.”
Mr. Patterson was scrutinizing in his questions concerning the sight of the weapon.
Miss Alice Woody was next called for the prosecution. Miss Woody is the daughter of Judge Frank Woody by the side of whose home the encounter had occurred. Miss Woody that night was sleeping in a second-story room on the Higgins avenue side. She was awakened at five minutes after three o’clock by loud cries. Looking out of her window she could see five men struggling. Their location was at a point on the sidewalk adjoining her father’s house, directly opposite the big doors of Johnson livery. Witness could see no one on the ground. She was unable to say whether or not the man who was making the cries was one of the five men who were struggling. She continued to watch until the men had gone. One went north on Higgins avenue toward the depot; two others south , with two men following them. The men ahead were partially turned in a position facing north, nearly constantly looking in that direction.
Miss Woody could not identify any of the parties in the struggle, nor could she distinguish any words or part of the conversation. The street was about the place of the encounter partially light, but directly in that spot was slightly shadowed.
On cross examination the witness was able to give no further information of the affair. She knew the defendants, but could recognize no one in the party on the street. The person going toward the depot walked along the sidewalk.
Dr. S. W. Minshall was next called.
Booth had presented himself at his office for surgical care on December 19. He had previously seen the patient at the hospital of Dr. Fitzgerald. At his own office on the occasion of the call he had found a wound back of the right ear, from one-fourth to three-eighths of an inch in length. This was in the nature of a cut, which, probed, disclosed a depression of the skull beneath. The tissues covering the skull had been separated, the depression being about one-sixteenth of an inch in depth.
Objection was made by Attorney Patterson to a question asking for an opinion as to what manner the injury could have been caused. The objection was overruled and the answer made:
“I could not say exactly, but would say by some small instrument, blunt no doubt. The wound was a clean cut, as though inflicted by some considerable force. The tissues covering the skull were torn.
“Take it all together, could the wound have been produced by a fist blow?” witness was asked.
“I do not think so; nor do I think it possible. I dressed the wound three times. With the exception of one day he was able to come to my office until Saturday last. One day of last week I was called to see the patient, who was then in his bed at the Florence hotel. He was feeling badly. He seemed to be in pain; stomach upset, and generally feeling badly. In the absence of other causes it was probable that the illness was the result of the head wound.”
“Did you ever examine Booth for other wounds or bruises?” was asked.
“He showed me his elbow. There I found wounds which the patient said had been occasioned by falling on his elbow when assaulted. I bandaged his head.”
“Did you direct how long the bandage should remain on?”
“I did.”
At this point the state rested.
Defense Has An Inning
Willard Ellis was the first witness called for the defense. Mr. Higgins conducting the examination [Frank Higgins was an attorney also]. Witness testified as follows:
“I was in front of Johnson’s livery barn on Higgins avenue on the morning of December 15. About 3 o’clock I noticed three men walking south on Higgins avenue, and heard them utter loud and boisterous remarks, connecting therewith the names of several ladies. I next saw two men coming north on Higgins avenue. The party of three I recognized as being made up of Booth, Blockley and Plunkett. Blockley was on the outside of the walk. Booth in the center, and Plunkett on the inside. The two men coming north, I recognized as Frank and Arthur Higgins.
“The street at the time was good and light; an electric light hung in the street intersection, there being nothing to interfere. I was up for my hack; I should judge about thirty feet distant.”
“Did you see all of the trouble that ensued between the two parties?”
“I did.”
“Did Arthur strike Booth?”
“He did not.”
“Did you see enough to tell if any guns were used?”
“I did, but saw none. I could see Arthur plainly enough. Neither he nor Frank had a gun in their hands during the trouble.”
A lively tilt occurred between counsel over an objection by Mr. Sanders to an answer that tended to repeat a conversation he had heard. Growing warm, Captain Higgins replied to a sally of the prosecution, that “our witnesses are not going to submit to any scant courtesy.” The matter was adjusted without further difficulty. The objection was not pressed and witness continued:
“When the parties were about fifteen feet apart I heard Frank exclaim: ‘Now will you shut mouth? Here I am!’ Frank walked up to Booth and they sparred about for a minute. Blockley fell out in the street. When he got up he moved about as though getting a gun. Frank said: ‘Get the big fellow; he’s getting a gun.’ Arthur got his man, Booth fell against the fence. Arthur never struck Booth. I saw the whole struggle.”
Witness further reiterated some of the former statements; in addition to these he stated that when Frank raised Booth he gave him a kick as he ordered him to walk down town.
Told a Different Story.
Cross examination was conducted by Sanders and County Attorney Hall. During this it was gained from witness that he had told stories somewhat contradictory to men about the barn. Witness answered that he had told John Gannon, or at least in his hearing, that the trouble was a “hold-up,” and that he had observed the proceedings through a window. In explanation, witness stated that his story on the stand was the true one, and that the reason therefore was that he did not want to be disturbed by being questioned about the affair. Witness told his brother, Fred Ellis, also an employee at Johnson’s practically the same story as that told to Gannon.
Frank G. Higgins, one of the defendants, took the stand. On him interest centered. Asked by Attorney Patterson to relate the circumstances of an alleged assault that occurred on the morning of December 15, Mr. Higgins testified as follows:
“Near the corner of Higgins avenue and Pine street myself and brother, Arthur, met Booth, Blockley and Plunkett. We had turned down Higgins avenue, getting perhaps eighty feet from the Woody corner. We heard them talking boisterously and coupling some improper remarks the names of Miss Hilda Higgins, my sister, and Miss Mary Tremblay [Mary would become the wife of Conrad Kelley of Butte – CEO of the Amalgamated Anaconda Company]. They also stated in a boisterous manner that they understood guns and would like to meet the Higgins brothers. When I heard this I turned back toward them, meeting the party about twenty-five or thirty-five feet from the south corner of Judge Woody’s fence.
“When within several feet of the men I exclaimed: ‘Here I am, you white-livered s – of b – s; now you can have what you want. I struck Booth, who was next to the fence. Plunkett, who had occupied that position on the walk, had slipped by and was running down the street hollering at the top of his voice. Booth fell backward and toward the fence.”
May Have Hit the Fence.
“Did his head strike the fence?” was asked.
“That I can’t say. He brushed close to it, if he did not strike it.
“I was in front of Booth when I struck Booth. The party made no effort to change their positions on the walk as we came up; they apparently stood still.”
Objection to a question as to what took place when Booth struck the fence was sustained for the reason that no testimony that his head had struck the fence had been given. Witness’ opinion was that in falling Booth’s head did strike the fence.
The court asked if he did not know this. Witness could not answer positively, but did know that he fell toward the fence. Continuing he said:
“I had no weapon or instrument during the attack. I could see Arthur’s actions plainly. He had no instrument or weapon whatever. There was no third man in our party, myself and Arthur were together. Arthur did not strike Booth. A portion of the time he was attempting to lead me away. I saw Blockley in the apparent act of drawing a gun, and told Arthur to stop him. I stepped away a few feet and told Plunkett, who had gotten down the street, to keep quiet. I then walked back to Booth, picked him up and, administering a kick told him to go on down town. We followed them down to the center of the next block toward the Florence.”
“Did you draw a revolver?” was asked.
“No, sir, nor did I see an instrument that would inflict grievous bodily harm. Booth and Blockley faced south and went to the Florence hotel. They did not walk backward. When I examined the fence the next day, beneath a spear-shaped iron picket I saw spots of blood. This was in the identical spot where Booth fell. Here the witness was turned over to the prosecution.
Higgins Cross Examined
The cross examination that followed at the hands of Colonel Sanders was probably the most exhaustive and rigid ever listened to within the walls of Missoula county courthouse. The questioner was inflexible maintaining a desire to exact from witness every action from the time of leaving his home until returning there some hours later. The account of the affair furnished on direct examination was reviewed in detail, no deviation from an exact affirmative or negative reply. Frequently the witness took offense and grew angry at the questions. The questioner maintained an unruffled demeanor. Frequent objections were offered by defendant counsel, but the questioning kept on. From the answers it was gathered that defendants had gone to Mrs. Higgins house, there waiting until a luncheon there going on was finished. Upon departure of Booth, Blockley and Plunkett to Miss McCormick’s home he heard one of the party say to another that if the gun he carried was not in good working order he could have the loan of the speaker’s. Remained about the house of my wife, at the windows of the north, south and west sides of the house for practically two hours.
At the conclusion of the cross examination of Mr. Higgins, which had occupied two hours and the hour had reached seven o’clock, court adjourned for a supper hour.
Promptly at eight o’clock counsel, defendants and the court reassembled. The audience of spectators that had comfortably filled the district court room during the afternoon and early evening was augmented by a throng for the evening session that crowded the capacity of the room to overflowing. Every available inch of space was crowded by an intent listener, every one of whom remained steadily and patiently through the exhaustive and lengthy proceedings that followed.
Dr. Fitzgerald Testifies
Dr. T. A. Fitzgerald was first called. He had been summoned to attend Booth who had been brought to the Florence hotel, injured. He found the trouble a clean cut nearly a half inch long; beneath was an indentation of the skull bone. Dr. Fitzgerald cared for the patient during four days. During all that time his condition, appetite and sleep were good. In characterizing the nature of the wound, the doctor stated that it was a deep clean cut; the depression of the skull was not separated. Witness testified that Booth walked up to his office, two blocks distant; that at no time was he unconscious; that later he walked up the steps of the hospital where he was put to bed. Doctor Fitzgerald considered the case at no time serious.
In the matter of consciousness at all times the testimony of Dr. Fitzgerald differed from that of the complaining witness.
By Colonel Sanders on cross examination, the doctor came in for stinging questioning. Mr. Higgins asked for protection from what he termed bulldozing by imported attorneys. The court was of the opinion that the witness could well care for himself.
Charles E. Dodge and R. M. Reock, nurses at the Trinity hospital, were on the stand to explain the actions of Booth while at their institution. They had watched and cared for the patient; the second day of his arrival he was up and played cards and walked about. They had considered him in good physical condition while at the hospital.
These witnesses also came in for a liberal amount of Colonel Sanders’ piercing questions from which they came forth with no honor of being able to cope with the colonel.
Did Not See Weapon
Joseph W. McGregor, night police officer, testified to a statement by
Mr. Blockley, one of the state’s witnesses, that when arriving at the hotel a few minutes following the assault, had said that he had been assaulted with guns and brass knuckles that he could not tell which as he was unable to say which as he did not see the weapon.
A. L. Stone had seen the marks of blood in snow near the Woody place, and in consequence drew a severe dose of sarcasm from Col. Sanders for accounts of the affair – romances they were called – to the Anaconda Standard.
The defense then closed.
In rebuttal the prosecution recalled Dr. Minshall, who said that he could not see how the wound could have been caused by striking on the picket of an iron fence as described. Miss Allie Woody, Booth and Blockley were recalled. Miss Woody saw no hack or man opposite at the Johnson barn as testified to by the witness Ellis. Mr. Booth asked protection of the court from Mr. Higgins, who sitting at the defendant’s table adjoining his chair, who he represented, was calling him names in a voice inaudible to most of the spectators. The court admonished Mr. Higgins to keep quiet, the answer being made that he was doing no name calling. Judge Woody and J. W. Ludden were also called in rebuttal. Here the state closed.
The defense called Charles E. Johnson, who testified that usually hacks, as described by witness Ellis, stood outside the front of his barn, at the time of the assault he was unable to say where the hacks stood.
The Arguments
The prosecution asked that arguments be postponed until morning. To this the defense objected, the court holding that the case should be closed before adjournment.
Col. Sanders opened for the prosecution. Those familiar with the colonel’s tendencies looked for a bitter denunciation of the defendants. They were disappointed. In a dispassionate voice he reviewed the testimony, characterizing the action of the defendants as a vicious, cowardly and bitter attack; that their defense was merely a sham, and that to permit of letting such lawlessness pass without being made an example of, no matter how prominent and great the principals, would be a travesty of justice in Missoula.
Frank G. Higgins followed. His address was fervent. He took occasion to hold up to malignity each of the opposing counsel; reserving there from one attorney whom he desired to thank for courtesies shown. Pointing to Colonel Sanders, he said:
“This case that deserves nothing more than police court significance had been foisted to a presumed higher charge purely for party politics. Bloated beyond recognition, it takes some one like that old villain upon whose head is the unavenged blood of hard struggling young men; yes from Alder Gulch to Hell Gate to give it a false showing.” [emphasis added D.G.]
John E. Patterson in a faltering and piping voice attempted to show an imaginary partisanship of the local press; he was brought up with a sharp turn by the court, who warned him to confine himself to the facts that had developed.
The county attorney followed. Boldly and in the presence of the court he denounced the writer of an article that appeared in the press in which he was explained as eulogizing the defendants, as a liar and a coward, and that he would fight him. He would fight a bull or a lion, but a person to seek cover behind a newspaper was a coward beneath him. He quoted the testimony of complainant’s witnesses, Booth and Blockley as being evasive of how or with what they were struck.
The Jan. 3, 1902 Fruit Grower and Farmer also included the following article on page 8.
A Delightful Watch Party
Miss Marie McCormick entertained a small party of friends New Year’s eve at her home on West Spruce St., The occasion was in the nature of a reunion and was greatly enjoyed by all. Refreshments appropriate to the occasion were served at midnight and discussed with gusto. After drinking a farewell to the Old Year and a welcome to the New Year, the party broke up about half past two.
The guests were: Mesdames C. P. Higgins, F. G. Higgins, F. H. Woody, Jr., H. G. Houghton; Misses Maria Higgins, Hilda Higgins, Marie McCormick; and Messrs. Theodore Booth, Edward Blockley, J. W. Ludden, F. H. Woody, Jr., and Jack Hayes.
Go Figure.
Below is a link to an article in the Washington Historical Quarterly (Jan., 1929) by James W. Watt (see pp 44 – 45).