Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 39, Number 69, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 3 May 1907 — JURY COULD NOT AGREE [ARTICLE]

JURY COULD NOT AGREE

The trial of the Milroy township trustee case resulted, as jury trials where the political element figures any are very apt to end. in a disagreement. ~

W. C. Hnston trustee of Milroy township, traded his farm in that township for a Store and residence and stock of goods in Perrysburg, in Miami county, and along last winter followed the sale of his farm by a public sale of his live stock, and farm implements at a public sale. He still retained 30 acres of unimproved land and a few little articles of personal property, of no special moment. After the sale Mr. Huston went to Perrysburg with his family, and took possession of his residence and store. He procured a room in Bronson Clark’s residence and had the township books and other property taken there, and arranged to come back every two weeks or such a matter, to attend the township business.

He left; along towards the middle of February and about a monih later, after a petition asking that action, and signed by a majority of the voters of the township had been presented to him, County Auditor Leatherman decided the office of trustee vacant and appointed G. L. Parks to the position. He went to Clark’s and got the books and other property, but Huston still held to the township money. Parks has since been defacto trustee and performed all the duties of the office except paying the teachers, which was done by Mr. Huston. Huston brought suit in the circuit court asking that Parks be ousted from the office, and also asked for pecuniary damages, and this is the case t iat has just beep tried.

The constitution of Indiana plainly declares tnat rvnwij -auu township officers must reside in the counties or tcfwnships where they hold office, and this trial all turned on the point whether Mr. Huston had ceased to be a resident of Milroy township. The law and decisions of the courts seem to make it clear that when a man with a family pulls up stakes and makes his home in another place, that his residence is lost where he moves from, both as to right to vote or hold office. A man’s intentions cut some figure if they can be correctly ascertained but his actions cut more. In this case while Mr. Huston did talk to a number ot persons, but in a very vague way, of coming back “next fall” and building a residence on his 30 acres, he never set any definite time for such a return, and even on the witness stand admitted that the matter ot his possible re tarn was contingent on his disposing of his property at Perrysburg, and he admitted he was not trying to close out his store by retail, but instead was keeping up a full'stock by frequent orders of new goods. Mr. Parks, the defendant, swore that Huston told him he would move away and ’resign; Auditor Leatherman swore that Huston expressed the same intention to him, Jim Robertson, ot Milroy swore that ou two separate occasions Huston told him he would move away and resign, and Miss Jessie Knox, a teacher in Milroy, swore to hearing him make the same statement. Rev. W. H. Flagg, now moved away, made a deposition that he heard Hasten make such a statement. All these witnesses were flatly contradicted by Mr. Huston. Deo Rannells, of Peru, but at the time a prominent business man at Perrysburg, swore that at a revival in the M. E. church there, very soon after Mr. Hus’on’s arrival, he heard Mr. Hnston giving in his “testimony” as it is called, as a Christian, and he said that while he was a stranger to most of the people there, he was not a stranger to Christ. That he had oome there to make his permanent home, and expected to be active in church work, and was surprised at the lack of religions zeal amon jf

the church members there. A party who investigated this matter at Perrysburg reported that 50 people over there could be found who remembered Mr Huston making that speech, in those words, but Mr. Huston denied that also. Eugene Mills, township assessor at Perrsyburg, .swore he heard Hustou say he had moved there to stay, and Wilson C. Friend, a prominent farmer whose land adjoins Perrysburg, swore to having heard Huston say the same thing. Both these witnesses were also flatly contradicted by ,Mr. Hnston. *

It was proved that Huston had listed his children for school purposes at Perrysburg, and had also been assessed for property and poll tax there, tho he was afterward assessed for poll tax in Milroy also. Mr. Huston testified that he objected to being assessed for Poll tax b>th places, but left the inference th it he did not care which place. He admitted that he came to town once with th,e intention of resigning the office of trustee, but denied that he came with that “express” purpose.

Another point in Mr. Huston’s testimony which strikingly illustrates how little 'his evidence helped his own case, was in regard to the bills he had printed and posted for his public sale. In his evidence in chief, he swore most positively, that he had made no change in the wording of the bills after first ordering them of the printer. But when testifying in prebuttal, he remembered just as clearly getting up at daylight and hurrying to Rensselaer, and having the printer strike out a phrase in which he stated the reason for his sale was his intention to move away.

The instructions of the court made it plain enough that Mr. moval from the tswnship"and an abandonment of the jffice. The jury from the very first, and without previous discussion, voted two tor the plaintiff to ten for the defendant, and they continued this way to the Very last, except on two or three ballots, when, by agreement, and more as a joke than any thing else* one more vote was cast for the plaintiff. The jury got the case about 5 p. m. Wednesday and at 8:30 a. m. this morning reported they were unable to agree on a verdict and were discharged. Of course, as nearly everyone already Knows, this big suit has be bind it something much more important than the trustee’s office for a couple of years, for the selection of a county school superintendent next month probably hinges upon it, and whichever party has the Milroy trustee 'will have a majority and if they hang together can elect a Superintendent. Under such circumstances, it was only natural that the Democratic leaders Should t.y to hold the office. The jurors who tried the case were J. P. Simons, W. F. Smith, Amos Alter, Leonard Lefler, Joseph Ealligau, R. W. Burris, Frank Webber, Louis Zick, John Nowels, Milton Jones, Robert Michaels, and Ernest Morlan. Messrs. Halligan, Lefler and Zick are understood to have been the only Democrats on the jury, and Halligan and Lefler were the two who constantly voted for Hutton.

It was a case which involved a political advantage, and on snch cases juries hardly ever agree, and The Republican has no criticism to offer for their not agreeing. As the matter now stands, Mr. Parks continues to be the legal trustee, and there is probably no way by which his claim to the office can be tried again before the matter of the county superintend ency is settled, tho theie is talk among Mr. Huston’s lawyers of asking for a change of venue and having it sent to trial in Newton county in the coming May term of that court. The case was ably conducted on both sides, the attorneys for Huston being Messrs Sellers Honao, Baughman and Leopold, and those for Parks beiig Foltz, Halleck, Parkinson and Irwin. <2 . • * A . „„