Rensselaer Republican, Volume 12, Number 10, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 20 November 1879 — A Full Account of flow the Crime Was Committed. [ARTICLE]

A Full Account of flow the Crime Was Committed.

Last week we promised the readers of the Republican that if possible we would give.in this issue the fail particulars of the trial of James F. Zimmerman, Thomas Zimmerman, John Zimmerman, James Zimmerman and Gilbert 1L Hurley, held before the Jasper Circuit Court, for stealing aud slaughtering a young heifer belonging to Simeon Dowell and Lewis Kem, and we shall now endeavor to fulfill that promise, believing that it will prove of general interest to every good citizen in tho county. The jury was impanneled and the trial commenced last Saturday a week, and continued (Sunday excepted) until the following Thursday evening. The jury being out but three hours returned a verdict of guilty, as to Janies F. Zimmerman and his three sons, fixing the penalty as follows: Each to be fined one dollar, confined one year in the State's prison and disfranchised for one year after their rolease. The law prescribes the punishment for offences of this kind and the jury fixed the penalty at the lowest limit. The case as to Gilbert 11. Hurley was continued until next term of court. The character of James F. Zimmerman, the lather, has not been' very good for truth and honesty, and this severe affliction that has fallen upon his hoary head is but the culmination of a life of evil habits. We feel sorry for the old man and regret that his three sons are required so soon to pay the penalty of following his evil examples. Their* aged mother and the wives and families of the married sons have the sympathy of their neighbors and the citizens of Jasper county generally. The ages of this prison ging are about as follows: Tho father, 50 years; Thomas,-25 years; John 22, and James 19. Saturday last they were taken to their homes in Barkley township, some nine miles north of this place, under tho escort of Sheriff Itobiuson and his bailiffs, to bid farewell to their sorroiwng families. It was a sad scene and a sorrowful parting, which the look-ers-on inform us they never wish to witness again. They remained heie over Sabbath, and on Monday took their departure for Michigan City, accompanied by the Sheriff. Prosecuting-Attorney Babcock deserves great credit for the zeal and ability manifested In this trial which resulted in establishing tie guilt of the parties named beyond the possibility of a doubt, notwithstanding the evidence was almost entirely circumstantial, and the able defence made by li. S. Dwiggtus and M. F. Chilcote. We copy from the memoranda the followit g STATEMENT OF FACTS: On the7th of last August, Simeon Dowell, in gathering up his cattle, missed a heifer belonging to bimself and Lewis Kern, of Rensselaer. The heifer was bright red in color, a thrifty yearling, weighing about GOO pounds, with long horns, slightly' carved, broad between the horns aud eye 6 and marked with a slit in left ear aiul the bush of the tail slightly cropped. She had been all season with the milch cows of William Daniels (who is a neighbor of Mr. Dowell), and had been up to his cow lots every night with his cows and went away with them on the morning of the 7th, the day on w hich the defendants are charged with taking and killing her. Mr. Dowell and his father continued to hunt for the heifer on her wonted range for several days, and during the time S. D. met the defendant, John Z. and his brother George on the road, and inquired of them about the heifer, giving a particular discription of her, and was told by them that they had not seen such a heifer. ' About a week from the time the heifer was last seen, Mr. William Daniels and James Snider were out hunting an ox on the same range, having a dog with them. Seeing the dog scenting something and following him they found where an animal had been butchered in a very secluded and unfrequented spot, far remote from any habitation and not in sight even of any publio road. Tho locality generally was not only secluded aud isolated but the particular spot where the heifer had been killed was about the most secluded and least likely to be seen of any place in all the surroundings. Daniels and Snider found the feet some distanco away in tho high grass, and in another direction, in a quakeuasp thicket, they found a tail

which Daniels at once recognised as the tail of Dowell’s he iter. dome careful inquiries developed the feet that tho defendants had been seen to go out in that direction with a team and gun, on the day the heifer was last seen, and return with something bulky in their wagon, and that they had from about that time been having fresh beef. Hurley, who is charged with these defendents iu the indictment, was interviewed by a friend and admitted the killing of the heifer. An affidavit was. there' noon, filed with 'Squire McColly and a warrant issued upon which the defendants were arrested and had a preliminary examination before that officer. At the time of their arrest and during some hours that elapsed before tbeir examination, they declared they had not killed any heifer. They had no opportunity to consult with Hmley, and when he was put upon the witness stand he testified to the killing of the heifer. Thereupon the elder Z. was heard to “now we’ll claim the heifer and I’ll be sworn first.” And so they did; setting up that it was “JiinV’ heifer and carefully followed the description given by Dowell ol his missing heifer. This furnishes all the clue that the State has to the theory of their defense. It must here be remarked, however, that j the State will probably also prove that the defendants told different persons that they had bought this very beef they got by killing the heifer. Another little coincidence which is an important circumstance in this case is the fact that only a little while—perhaps two or three hours or maybe not an hour befere the heifer was killed, she was seen within a few hundred yards of where she was slaughtered. A further circumstance tending strongly to prove the guilt of the defendants is the fact that when on their way homo witli the stolen beef, they were about to meet two of their neighbors on the Valparaiso road, and for no oilier perceptible reason than to avoid being seen with their booty, they turned off the road before they met the neigh, bor, made a circuit, where there was no tracks and not as good ground to travel on and came back to the road after passing the neighbor’s tcairi. Having learned from Hurley the disposition of the hide, head and intestines of theheitor, the two Dowell’s, and two other persons at their request, went in search of them, and the search resulted in finding tho hide cut in three pieces and buried in ashes at one of the Zimmerman’s, and the pouch and head thrown in water which entirely concealed them in a marsh near where the heifer was killed. The hide had been so closely trimmed and so changed by the action of the alkali iu tho ashes, that its identification could scarcely be considered reliable. But Tom Z. offered to give it up to Dowell and rather insisted on his taking it. The heifer had been killed very near a large marsh, and the head and ponch were found in water over knee deep and 2 rass about waist high, about 50 yards from where the heifer was killed, the ponch being traced by its trail thro’ 4.tbp tall grass, which was broken down by dragging it. The head, having been covered by water was in a fair state of preservation, and was readily identified by all the parties as the head of Dowell’s heifer. From this brief outlino of facts relied upon by the State for a conviction of these defendants, it has appeared to the jury that the State’s evidence consists almost entirely of circumstantial evidence. Some of these circumstances, if considered entirely alone, would perhaps have but little significance, but with al| the different links properly connected, forged and welded by witnesses, whoseliability cannot be questioned or their varaeity doubted, from a chain which reason cannot resist and by which the rational mind can be led to bnt one conclusion.