Evening Republican, Volume 19, Number 107, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 6 May 1915 — GRANGERS ON TRIAL ON BURGLARY CHARGE [ARTICLE]

GRANGERS ON TRIAL ON BURGLARY CHARGE

Henry Granger and Son Roy Are Being Prosecuted For Alleged Robbing of Adams’ House.

Henry Granger and son, Roy, are being tried in the Jasper circuit court on the charge of robbing a farm house on the Joseph Adams ranch, near Thayer, last May. Mr. Adams is at the head of a stock commission firm in the Chicago yards and is' one of the leading witnesses for the prosecution. The articles' stolen from his house were ’ four rugs and an overcoat. Charles Shinkle, who was arrested and pleaded guilty to the robbery, is the main witness for the prosecution.

_ Two hours were spent in selecting a jury and only five of the regular panel were left when the jury was finally accepted. There was some time spent in arguing the defendant’s motion to quash the indictment, the point being whether the indictment was properly prepared. It names burglary and grand larceny under one head and the defense contended that the charges should be separate. For a time it looked as though Henry, Who has on previous occasions escaped trial by legal technicalities, might crawl through on that ground again, but Judge Hanley overruled the motion to quash and the examination of the jury was started. Attorney Parkinson, who examined the jury for the defense, had difficulty in framing a question to the jurymen concerning the fact that the state would depend largely upon the evidense of Shinkle, a party to the robbery, and the defense wanted to know of each juryman if they would conside rthe evidence of an accomplice with the same weight as the evidence of any other person. The question as phrased was calculated to prejudice the talesmen against the evidence of Shinkle, but it was not admitted. The jury was stolen just before the period for adjournment for the supper hour and Judge Hanley announced an evening session. Joseph Adams, the ranch owner, was the first witness. He testified that he visited his home on the ranch used as summer cottage on May 20th, 1914, and found everything in good condition, that he returned on May 27th, 1914, and found the house stripped of much of the furnishings, such as rugs, blankets, shoes, boots, an overcoat, etc. One Charles Shinkle was arrested and some of the property found in his home at Thayer. He was charged with petit larceny and pleaded guilty and served a jail sentence of 90 days in the Jasper county jail. In the fall of 1914 he divulged to the prosecuting attorney, Mr. Longwell, that Henry and Roy Grainger were implicated in the robbery and that if given time he could produce 'the balance of the stolen property. Shinkle then in company with Mr. Adams and detective Garner, went to Hammond and found the greater portion of the stolen goods in a storage house in that city. Shinkle told how he in company with the defendants, went down the river in two boats and landing near the Adams cottage went over and broke open a window and opened the door and ransacked the house, staying there about an hour and a half, returning late at night by way of their boats. That- the goods taken by the Grangers was boxed and removed to Hammond the next day after Shinkle was arrested, where it was found Oct 26, 1914, stored in the name of one Clark. Shinkle stuck to the story on cross examination. Shinkle was asked on cross examination if he did not about two weeks ago visit Henry Granger and tell him that if he would give 'him money enough to pay his wife’s car fare arid that if one of his children to California that he’ would get out of the country and not testify against him, to which question he answered that he did not have such conversation. The case was resumed again on Thursday morning. Parkinson and Halleck are for defendants hnd T. B. Cunningham has charge of the case for the state, assisted by Prosecutor Hess, Deputy Sands and Fred Longwell. This Thursday morning the state again placed Shinkle and Adams on the stand and then closed their case. The defense used Dr. C. M. Rice, of Roselawn, and Roy and Henry Granger, the latter leaving the stand at about 1:30 o’clock. The attorneys far the state tried to get him to recall that he was the same Henry Granger who had pleaded guilty to some charges of selling liquor on Sunday some seven years ago, but Henry could not remember. He proved a good witness for the defense and all the attorneys could do failed to get him tangled in the least The jury that is hearing the case is composed of the following men:W. D. Bringle, W. V. Porter, -John Poole, H. W. Kdplinger, Wesley Faytor, Thos. Lowe, 0, M. Blue, Henry Davis,

O. K. Rainier, Chas. Henslcr, E. P. Lane and William Newels. Other Cases. J. C. Gwin vs. Boyer. Tried before jury Wednesday and resutled in verdict of s3l for plaintiff. G. A. Williams, attorney for plaintiff, and A. Halleck, attorney for defendant. State vs. Bicknell. John A. Bicknell entered plea of guilty for violating automobile law and was fined $5 and costs. Norris et al vs. Warren et al. This case was tried before the jury Tuesday and Wednesday and resulted in a verdict for the defendant. It related to the title to two lots in Newton or Clark’s addition to Rensselaer. These lots were owned by Wm. J. Norris. Mr. Norris was married three times and by his first wife had two children, Ella Norris and Jaimes Norris. James Norris is dead and left left a widow and several children. Ella Norris is unmarried and an inmate of the county farm.. Ella Norris and James Norris, heirs, were the plaintiffs in this action, claiming title as heirs at law of .their ancestor, William J. Norris. Mr. Norris was married a third time in 1867, to one Nancy Warren, who was the mother of the defendant in this action, Marshall L. Warren. The defendant claimed title as the only heir at law of Nancy Norris, his mother. Wiliam J. Norris died Nov. 16, 1899, as-

ter a lingering illness of several months, during which time he was confined to his home. Two months before his death he deeded the property in question to his third wife, Nancy Norris, and it* was this deed the plaintiffs sought to set aside for the reason that William J. Norris was of unsound mind at the time he made the deed. Several witnesses were produced for each side. The testimony as to unsoundness of mind was weak and the jury decided in favor of the defendant, thereby upholding the deed. This gives the defendant title to'the real estate, which is vacant lots, the old house having been sold and moved from the premises several years ago. The property was lees than SSO in value at the time of the death of Mr. Noris, but is now probably worth S7OO. W. H. Parkinson was attorney for plaintiffs and Chapman & Blue for the defendant, Warren. *