Rensselaer Republican, Volume 19, Number 33, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 21 April 1887 — THE JURY DISAGREES. [ARTICLE]

THE JURY DISAGREES.

No Verdict Reached in the Tri?l 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, ■JJtfLa-eaMttV brewer who bag been on trial at Sioux City for several weeks past for the murder of Rev. George C. Haddock, has been discharged, having been unable to reach an agreement. The jury stood eleven i 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 volumo of testimony. That a vast amount of perjury has been committed is apparent jo all, as shown by the conflicting testimony. It is hot determined when another trial will be had. It is probable it will be in the May term. ’

[Sioux City telegram.] Judge Pendleton made the closing argument to the jury for the defense, and Hon. AI. D. O’Connell dosed for the State. Saturday afternoon the case was given to tbe jury. The instructions of Judge Lewis to the jury were full and clear, covering every point of law involved in the case. Referring 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 Au- I gust 3, the part that Air. Haddock had taken in those prosecutions, the relations which Arensdorf and his alleged coconspirators sustained to the prosecution, the appearance of Ar. ndsdorf 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 witli which he wa9 connected, evidence of the acts or sayings of conspirators is admissible whether defendant was present or not. In relation to testimony of accomplices, the Judge 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 tests 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 ohe of the jijrors, whose actions it] court and talk on the streets have been subjects of comment. 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 atrial more pleasant. While I may say this with regard to the case -and its conduct generally, I feel I would not discharge my duty fully seould I fall 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 I 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 iu making up a verdict in so important a case us this he will see the propriety and justice of giving that attention and deliberation which every fair aud honest mind knows that both the State and defendant are entitled to. Lest this romnrkTnay be misapplied, in viow 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 wav 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 ! called them into court and asked them if ■ they had decided upon a verdict. Foreman | Webster, who was the juror so severely I criticised by the Judge in his instructions, , answered that they had not. The | Jmlge then said he supposed each of them had decided iu his own i mind as to what the verdict should be, and they repl ed that they had. The Judge said that he d.d not wish to keep the jury but to punisa them, but to give them time to deliberate. Foreman Webster said ! that ho did not believe they wanted the 1 case taken from them yet. There was one ! stubborn man on the jury, but ’be - thought before night they could arrive at a verdict. ] Ju:or Dennis O’Connell arose and, addressing the Court, said that he had made up his ] ; mind' iu the case in the fear of God and j without any regard to the favor of man 5 , i He had considered the case carefully and j ; wished to do justice as between man and man and to bis country aud bis God, aud if be was kept there three, or four weeks | he shoYild not change bis opinion. The Judge said that, this being the condition of affairs, it would probably do no good to keep the jury out longer, and i e accordingly discharged them. This leaves -the case in Le same 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, aud the friends of Arensdorf are loud in their denunciation, while others say that in view of the statement of Juror O'Connell lie was justified. On the first ballot the jury stood ten for acquittal and two for convict on. C. G. Goss was the other juror who voted for conviction, but after three ballots he went over to the majority, leaving O'Connell alone.