Evening Republican, Volume 18, Number 127, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 29 May 1914 — ENTERPRISE MAKES COMMENT ON TRIAL [ARTICLE]

ENTERPRISE MAKES COMMENT ON TRIAL

Says Public Sentiment Convicted Willis, Though Jury Returned Verdict For Acquittal. - Kentland Enterprise. The trial of James Willis, of Rensselaer, on a charge of perjury, occupied the attention of the court Monday and Tuesday. The ease was tried before Judge Berry, of Fowler, and the attorneys engaged made a bitter fight. Willis, it will be remembered, was convicted in this court at the October term on the charge of criminal assault on a little girl, and was sentenced to 90 days in jail and given a fine of SSOO. The verdict was received in Rensselaer with indignation, and on the encouragement of the Good Citizens League of that city Prosecutor Longwell filed an affidavit changing that Willis had perjured himself in the evidence given at the former trial. At the expiration of Willis’ jail sentence he was again placed under arrest. The perjury case was the first on the docket called up Monday morning. Prosecutor Longwell was as-, sisted by Attorney A. Halleck, and W. H. Parkinson, chief counsel for the defense, was assisted by John A. Dunlap and Judge Darroch. Both sides put up a stubborn fight and it was late Tuesday evening before the case was given to the jury. We are informed that the first ballot of the jury stood 9 to 3 for acquittal and at midinght but one of the three jurymen holding out for acquittal had given over to the judgment of the majority. The verdict of acquittal was reached on the eleventh ballot.

The best citizens of Rensselaer are free in expressing their belief that Willis was guilty of the first offense, and there are few who doubt the perjury charge Yet, libertine or saint, he has had his day in court and has gone to Ohio with his wife and children to start life anew.

Public sentiment does not always endorse the verdict of a trial jury. In the first Willis case in particular, much street talk was heard that fixed guilt on Willis, but this talk was not permitted to reach the jury. And there was also conflicting evidence that no doubt resulted in a compromise- verdict. It is regrettable that befogging evi-

dence is permitted to creep into such cases. One of the jurymen in the last case stated that he considered the perjury charge merely an excuse to make greater the punishment for the first offense, and that he did not feel justified to convict a man over the verdict of a former jury. While Judge Barry was hearing the Willis case Judge Hanley convened court in his private office and granted a divorce to Clara Graves, from Claude E. Graves.