Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 20, Number 67, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 April 1899 — The Circuit Court. [ARTICLE]

The Circuit Court.

The Politcal Prosecution of John E. Alter JGnds in His Acquittal. A Malicious Prosecution Case From White County. John E. Alter, ex-oounty surveyor, was tried Wednesday, on a charge of perjury, on an affidavit by John Jessen; in swearing to an account that was not owed. Some months ago, Mr. Alter as surveyor, was requested by the auditor to post three notices along the line of the Coates ditch. He had not time to do the work, and, in the way of giving Mr'. Jessen a friendly boost, as he had many times before, Alter got Jessen to do the posting, Mr. Alter furnishing his own team, and this last fact is important to remember as showing the despicable and ungrateful animus of this prosecution. Mr. Jessen went out and posted the notices and came back and filed with the auditor his' report and with it a claim, against the ditch, for SI.BO for his own, work. He made no claim for anything for Mr. Alter for his team and buggy, nor did he tell Alter that he had filed a claim for the work, nor did he offer to pay or even thank Alter for his team. Now the county surveyor is allowed $3 per day for work in the field, but has to furnish his own team and instruments, when needed. It had been his custom, as it is of most other county surveyors, when a deputy is sent out to do the work, for the surveyor to charge the $3 a day as the law allows, and to pay the deputy $2 of this and himself retain $1 for the use of teams and instruments; an arrangement which no fair minded man will say is not just and proper.

In this case Mr. Alter, not knowing that Jessen had himself filed against the ditch his claim for his day’s work, entered it in his book, along with others, and at the next term of the commissioners’ court filed a claim, in Jessen’s name and for his benefit for $2.50, not charging in this case'the full $3.00 for a days work. This $2.50 was intended to cover Mr. Jessen’s work and allow a small amount for Alter’s team. 9 When the bill was filed a number of Alter’s own bills were filed with it, and in docketing them the auditor, by mistake, docketed the Jessen bill in Alter’s name. The bill was thus allowed in Alter’s name; and warrants for that ancT quite a number of others were drawn by the auditor, and Mr. Alter took them and had them cashed all together and not noticing that the warrant for Jessen’s work was erroniously included. ' A In tbe meantime, after the bills were allowed but before Mr. Alter took up the warrants, Mr. Jessen called at the auditor’s office and called for and was shown the bill in his name and for his work, as filed by Mr. Alter. But not a word did Mr. Jessen say to Alter about a mistake having been made, or about his having himself received his pay for posting the notices. On the other hand he seems to have kept purposely quiet about the matter until after Mr. Alter had drawn and cashed the erronious warrant. In this silence in Mr. Jessen’s part, when a word from him would have saved the man who had befriended him from committing a mistake that might be punished as a crime, is another circumstance showing the animus of this whole matter. The Rensselaer Democrat, of which Mr. Jessen is the principal Afx/&A**v/C*a UIAIVUI uUIA C*U V AWa a UCnUL

for months been falsely charging all kinds of dishonesty against our county officials, and this little $2 50 mistake was a chance not to be lost. It was a ground hog case, they were out of meat and had to have it.x A feature of the trial showed that other men as well as our county officers make mistakes, and if making a mistake and swearing to it is perjury, then even Mr. Jessen, the prosecuting witness, would be amenable to the law. He swore, very positively that when he got his warrant for posting the notices, he signed no receipt of any kind. Yet he did sign the receipt stub in the auditor’s warrant book, and the same was produced at the trial. The jury had the case about two hours aiid then brought in a verdict of not guilty. The jury at first stood ten for acquittal and two for conviction. A venue case from White County came to an abrupt end, Thursday. It was the suit of one Wm. Mevis against Michael Vogel, for malicious prosecution. Mr, Vogel lives at Reynolds, and himself and family are greatly re spected. Mevis is a strange character, thought to be of Russian nationality, who lived in the neighborhood. He tried to go with Vogel’s daughter, but was sat down on hard. He made threats and was known to have procured a revolver. One evening several shots were fired at Miss Vogel, and a whole lot of circumstances seemed to point conclusively to Mevis as the shooter. He was tried but in spite of the chain of circumstances, he was acquitted. He then brought this suit against Mr. Vogel* It came here on change of venue, but when the case was called Thursday, there was no Mevis there, and the jury found for the defendant, under the instructions of the court.