Nine Minutes to Acquit: A Kent Killing Ruled Self-Defense

The jury in the Harn murder trial, after about nine minutes, brought in a verdict of not guilty yesterday afternoon at 4 o'clock. The trial is said to be the shortest on record for a regular murder trial, and the result was not at all unexpected by the crowd in attendance.

The evidence showed that Harn was acting in self-defense and had no intention of killing Eggen, but on the other hand did all in his power to bring him about all right.

The history of the killing is that while Harn and Eggen were on their way home from Kent, Eggen demanded money from Harn, who said he did not have it handy. Eggen became angered and tried to hit Harn with the handle of a churn, and after two unsuccessful attempts was hit on the temple with a pitchfork, and died several [hours] after of a fractured skull.

The taking of testimony began in the morning. The first witness called by the state being Dr. Horton, who performed the post-mortem examination. Dr. [Sole] and Dr. Hoye testified that the skull had been fractured on the left side, the deceased dying from the loss of blood.

E. H. Molke, of Kent, testified that deceased on his deathbed said he did not know why Harn had struck him. On cross-examination he admitted that he did not quite understand Eggen, as he was talking in the Swedish language, but thought that was what he said.

The state then called Eddie Molke, a lad of 15 years, who was the only eye-witness. The boy said he saw the row and saw Harn hit Eggen. His story weakened partly on cross-examination by Mr. Piles. He was asked if he did not say at the preliminary examination that [Eggen] was trying to hit Harn [on the road], and he admitted that he did, and thought that he said that Eggen was trying to hit Harn, and that it was then that Harn hit him.

The state rested its case here.

The defense proved by Mr. Doolittle, Tom [Ryan] and J. A. Cavanaugh that Eggen said before he died that he had made a fight on Harn and had tried to hit him first.

C. E. Gulberson and Terence O'Brien swore that young Molke said before the justice of the peace that Eggen had struck him first.

A. Tifley, of Kent, stated that he kept a hotel at [Kent] when Eggen was in [his care]. He stated that he had several talks with Eggen while he was sick and heard him say several times that he had struck at Harn several times with an iron bar before Harn hit him.

Harn himself was next called, and said he had lived in the county twenty-seven years. He was shot when a child and injured severely twice afterward. He knew Eggen from March until October, 1904, worked for him, and [did not think] he owed him money. He met Eggen on the day of the row in Kent [and] was to take a drink, after which he, Eggen and another man started toward Harris' ranch. On the way Eggen got troublesome, picked up the churn handle and came towards him and told him he had to have some money. Witness told him he would get him some, but Eggen insisted, and rushed at him with a wild look, striking at him, and he hit Eggen with the fork. After Eggen fell down, witness picked him up and, with a little help, got him to town, went to the hotel and secured him a room. He even sat up at night with him and gave him all the attention he could. He had no more intention of killing the man than he had of killing himself, and only hit him to protect himself.

Mr. Hastie, on cross-examination, asked the witness if Eggen was drunk, and he said he did not think so; he never saw him drunk before.

"What did he do after you hit him?" "Tell [the jury]." "Did he get up again?" "He tried to, and reached for the handle, and I kicked it away."

The opening statement to the jury was made by Mr. Wilshire, deputy prosecuting attorney. He made a plain statement of facts, and thought that the country being so open, leaving a way of escape, the defendant should not have taken a human life, no matter whether he was in fear of being injured by the deceased or not. He accused the counsel for the defense of "badgering" the boy who testified at the morning session, and said that was the "strong" point of the defense.

Mr. Piles followed Mr. Wilshire in a strong argument and held that no proof had been introduced to warrant holding the prisoner as long as he has been held. He asked if the names of the reputable witnesses that testified for the defense would not carry weight. He said he did not "badger" the small boy. He also dwelt on Harris' action after Eggen was struck down and up to the time of the latter's death.

Prosecuting Attorney Hastie closed the [case] for the state in a recital of the testimony, and thought it time that such "accidents" were dealt with according to law. He thought conviction should follow in these cases.

The judge charged the jury at 3:40, and at 5:05 a verdict of not guilty [was] returned.

Harn and his friends returned to Kent last night.