Same Streets
← All stories

The Woodchopper Who Rigged a Gun—and the Murder Trial That Followed

Newell S. Barr's cabin trap killed a would-be intruder in Whatcom; his lawyer vowed to take the property-defense question to the Supreme Court.

The story, cleaned up

A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.

THE GUN-TRAP CASE. Attorney Dole Will Contest the Verdict on the Law.

E. P. Dole, who defended Newell S. Barr, the Whatcom gun-trap defendant, against a charge of murder, returned home Thursday evening. The verdict of the jury finding Barr guilty of murder in the second degree was not a surprise to him, although he says the verdict should be, and will be in the end, an acquittal.

'While I do not wish to accuse Judge Winn of any unfairness,' said Mr. Dole yesterday, 'I do not see how, under his instructions, the jury could have returned a different verdict. Barr is a woodchopper and lived in a cabin on the outskirts of Whatcom. When he went away he set a gun in his cabin in such a manner that any one endeavoring to burglarize the premises would be shot. John Erickson tried to break into the place one stormy night and was killed. There was no denial as to the facts at all; we pleaded for the defense the law on the questions involved. There have only been four or five cases of the kind in the United States, and I cited two cases directly in point—one from Kentucky about sixty years ago and a more recent one from Connecticut. In both cases it was held that a man had a right to set a trap gun to protect his property. All old English cases sustain the right.

'The court, however, instructed the jury in effect that if Barr set the gun with the malicious and deliberate intent to kill whoever might enter, it would be murder in the first degree, second degree or manslaughter, according as the act was deliberately premeditated or otherwise, unless under the circumstances he would have been justified in the killing; and that he must be found guilty if the attempt to enter the cabin was not for the purpose of robbery, or, even if it was for robbery, the defendant could have avoided the loss of his goods by any means short of taking human life. The court declined to give any of the instructions submitted by either the prosecution or the defense, but gave many of them in substance.'

Mr. Dole says that while at the time of the killing the people were very much prejudiced against Barr, at the conclusion of the trial the sentiment was in his favor and all hoped for an acquittal; the verdict was not a surprise to anybody. Dole has given notice for a new trial, and if denied will carry the case to the supreme court and there argue the matter on the law. He is confident Barr will be acquitted.

“In both cases it was held that a man had a right to set a trap gun to protect his property. All old English cases sustain the right.”

— Printed in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894
Then · 1894132 years apartNow · 2026

Whatcom is now Bellingham, but the legal question has not aged out: how far can property owners go to defend their premises with lethal force? The case also shows how a local death could become a test of English common law and American self-defense doctrine. Modern debates over booby traps and stand-your-ground laws still echo Dole's argument.

The original page

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-02-17. Library of Congress, Chronicling America.

From readers

No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.

About this story

From
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, FEB 17, 1894, Page 5
Rights
Public domain
Place
48.75440, -122.47884 · placed automatically
The paper in the Library of Congress catalog ↗