Democratic Sentinel, Volume 11, Number 12, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 22 April 1887 — THE JURY DISAGREES. [ARTICLE]

THE JURY DISAGREES.

No Verdict Reached in the Trial of Arensdorf for Shooting Haddock. ' Eleven of the Twelve Good Men and True for Acquittal to One for Conviction. The jury in the case of John Arensdorf, the wealthy brewer who has been on trial at Sioux City for several weeks past for the murder of Eov. George C. Haddock, has been discharged, having been unable to reach an agreement. The jury stood eleven for acquittal to one for conviction. The latter was proof against the appeals and arguments of his eleven obstinate associates, and as they were equally fixed in their opinions, the contest ends in a drawn battle. It has been a protracted and wearisome trial, involving the examination of over one hundred and twenty witnesses, with an immense volume of testimony. That a vast amount of perjury has been committed is apparent to all, as shown by the conflicting testimony. It is not determined when another trial will be had. It is probable it will be in the May term. [Sioux City telegram.l Judge Pendleton made the closing argument to the jury for the defense, and Hon. M. D. O’Connell closed for the State. Saturday afternoon the case was given to the jury. The instructions of Judge Lewis to the jury were lull and clear, covering every point of law involved in the case. Kefernng to the question of conspiracy, the Judge said the jury may and should take into consideration all the facts in relation to the prosecution of liquor cases in the courts to close the saloons on or before August 3, the part that Mr. Haddock had taken in those prosecutions, the relations which Arensdorf and his alleged coconspirators sustained to the prosecution, the appearance of Arendsdorf and his alleged co-conspirators on the streets on the night of the murder, and also the meetings of the saloonkeepers at the various halls prior to that time. Under the indictment, the Judge held, it was competent to admit evidence to prove the fact of conspiracy, and if the jury is satisfied that a conspiracy was formed with which he was connected, evidence of the acts or sayings of conspirators is admissible whether defendant was present ©r not. In relation to testimony of accomplices, the J udge instructed that it should be corroborated, and the law says the corroboration must be such as connects or tends, to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime. It may be circumstantial or by witnesses, but it is not essential that it should cover all the matters involved. In proving an alibi, the Judge held, the burden of proof rests upon the defendant. It must be established by preponderance of evidence, and evidence of that nature is to be critically examined and weighed, because of the facilities offered for introduction of manufactured testimony. In closing the Judge administered a severe reproof to one of the jurors, whose actions in court and talk on the streets have been subjects of oomment. The Judge spoke as follows: Gentlemen, at the conclusion of this lengthy case, and as you are about to retire, I ought to thank you for your promptness in attendance and good attention. I think that no case has ever been tried in the courts where attorneys and jurors have made a trial more pleasunt. While I may say this with regard to the case and its conduct generally, I feel I would not discharge my duty fully scould I fail to call attention to the fact that there is one juror who from the time he was sworn has shown a stubborn disposition and apparently no desire to roach the facts in the case. I think that 1 have never before seen such an exhibition of impatience and unrest as I have seen on the part of one of the jurors in this case. From day to day I have regretted it. I trust now that when that juror is called upon to act in making up a verdict in so important a case as this he will see the propriety -and justice of giving that attention and deliberation which every fair aud honest mind knows that both the fitato and defendant are entitled to. Lest this remark may be misapplied, in view of the fact that there has been some newspaper comment as to the juror Adair, I may say that the remark is not intended to in any way apply to him. I have been pleased to note that he, with ten ■other jurors, has given good and respectful attention. This speech created a sensation in court. The jury went into retirement at 4 o’clock p. m. Saturday, and remained in seclusiou until noon Sunday, when Judge Lewis called then? into court and asked them if ihey had decided upon a verdict. Foreman Webster, who was the juror so severely criticised by the Judge in his instructions, answered that they had not. The Judge then said he supposed each of them had decided in his own mind as to what the verdict should be, and they replied that they had. The Judge said that he did not wish to keep the jury out to puuish them, but to give them time to deliberate. Foreman Webster said that he diu not believe they wanted the case taken from them yet. There was one stubborn man on the jury, but he thought before night they could arrive at a verdict. Juior Dennis O’Connellarose and, addressing the Court, said that he had made up his mind in the case in the fear of God and wiihout any regard to the favor of man. He had considered the case carefully and wished to do justice as between man and man una to his country and his God, and if he was kept there three or four weeks he should not change his opinion. The Judge said that, this being the condition of affairs, it would probably do no good to keep the jury out longer, and .lie accordingly discharged them. This leaves the. case in toe sume condition as it was before the trial began, so far as the court is concerned. There is considerable comment on the street upon the action of the Judge, and Ihe friends of Arensdorf are loud in their denunciation, while others say that in view of the statement of Juror O’Connell he was justified. On the first ballot the jury stood ten for acquittal and two for convictou. C. G. Goss was the other juror who voted for conviction, but after threo ballots he went over to the majority, leaving O’Counell alone.