Silver City Enterprise — 1888-1890 (full OCR, Internet Archive) — 1890-05-30
source date: 1890
availability: public-domain

Indians Out Ben Crawford Killed In Graham County Information was received at Fort Bayard Tuesday evening of the killing of Ben Craw- ford, ex-sheriff of Graham county, by Indians in southern Arizona. So far the details are quite meager, but seem to be reliable. Ben was traveling through the mountains, and he and his companion were both killed. A telegram received yesterday by Col. A. E. Head, at Deming, states that Indians ran off five horses from the herd on the Animas, near the Gray ranch. The men, employed by the company, were holding 1,600 head of beef steers for shipment, the horse herd was a short distance away; the Indians fired on the horse herder cutting his saddle and trappings with bullets and driving him off. The men on the beef herd were too busy with the steers to inter- fere with the Indians. They took what horses they wanted and hunted new pastures. A dispatch from Tombstone dated May 26th, say that the body of Robert Hardie, a well-known lawyer of Los Angeles, was brought in there from the Chiricahua mountains, where he was killed by hostile Apaches Sunday after- noon. His companion, Mr. Francis Haynes, of Philadelphia, had his horse shot from under him, and escaped by mounting his companion’s horse. The Indians fired from ambush. The facts will be reported to President Harrison. ( IB ) The Judge Vindicated

hostile Apaches Sunday after- noon. His companion, Mr. Francis Haynes, of Philadelphia, had his horse shot from under him, and escaped by mounting his companion’s horse. The Indians fired from ambush. The facts will be reported to President Harrison. ( IB ) The Judge Vindicated A Lucid Explanation of Last Week’s Accusation Central City, N. M., May 27, 1890 To the Editor of the Enterprise : Sir: — Your issue of the 23d inst. contained an article under the head of “Information from a very reliable citizen of Silver City, that the justice of the peace of Central was carrying the law out with excessive stringency, etc.” The facts in the case in question are : On the night of the 10th, a complaint was filed with me by the constable, charging certain parties with misdemeanor. It then being too late in the night for action, on the morning of the 17th, warrants were issued, parties arrested, brought into court, tried and convicted as charged. One of the parties convicted refused to pay their fine or go to jail, but locked themselves up in their room. The constable then told me that he would have to break the door open in order to execute a commitment then in his hands. My reply to him was: “You are the officer and you are responsible for the person charged and should know what to do.”

d themselves up in their room. The constable then told me that he would have to break the door open in order to execute a commitment then in his hands. My reply to him was: “You are the officer and you are responsible for the person charged and should know what to do.” In the meantime a gang of lewd women had gathered in front of the justice’s office, and in the crowd was Mr. Bruesch, who was intoxicated at the time, had been drinking from saloon to saloon with your reliable informant, (but Bruesch paying for the drinks every time.) I told these women to go away and not interfere with an officer in the execution of his duties, and also told Mr. Bruesch the same. Then and there Mr. Bruesch refused to go away. Then I ordered him to be arrested and brought into court. He came into the court room cursing and swearing and telling how things were done in Prussia. The court then politely informed Mr. Bruesch that he must take off his hat and stop cursing and swearing or that the court would be compelled to fine him (Bruesch) for con- tempt. To this Mr. B paid no attention, what- ever. The court then fined him $5 for contempt, but Mr. B. continuing, the court then fined him $5 more. This not having accomplished, the de- sired effect, the court again was compelled to impose a third fine of $5. This did not seem quite adequate to the occasion and the court told him that if he still continued to curse and swear that it would have to give him thirty

re. This not having accomplished, the de- sired effect, the court again was compelled to impose a third fine of $5. This did not seem quite adequate to the occasion and the court told him that if he still continued to curse and swear that it would have to give him thirty days in jail. Then the court heard no more from Mr. B. while in the court room. After leaving the court room, Mr. B. and your reliable informant were around in the street creating disturbances and I had to threaten to send Mr. B. to jail before he would behave himself. Mr. Bruesch is the town butcher and if he had been in his shop attending to his own busi- ness, this circumstance would not have hap- pened, and Mr. B. might have been a wiser and wealthier man. As to the threats made by one of your at- torneys as to what he intended to do, he should remember that he is not in Georgia. — Henry Woods, Justice of the Peace, Central, N. M.