The Iowa plain dealer. [volume] (New Oregon, Howard County, Iowa) 1867-1895, 1873-02-14

- sss~sAsp = 80 svss - Il
- \ -. .sss. |. n fAs~sF -. N
nss+vss sss Ass~H AssA \ sW# wvsAss
,~t~s t~aass. Vi sslt4H a 80 49,.
IN ~As4A 40 asss~Asat ~aA tssarea
ssa. ~ assessed w. 49, a.aA#..
- isass ~=ss@t - 80 -,
~. ~ As<s@Asss sAsav 49, s.ssl
\ y NssAs ssssssa~ ~ " A~fs~s,
s@A H~#st \ NsYA NJ. ~ Msu
~ Me~~~ a &l~sNne III. ~,
n sAss Tsss u tAh - ~M~~s msk..
! - 4 sAelss~~ Ma~~. Y f~&~~s&
es~s~ss~s - hssi~ ~ ss&lla~al
ss@ss = ssN@& hsM ~lAeA sssk fast,
sssA~ shs@* ss~es ~Asa l s~wass
t~s~s !. ~ s4A%ss Afs~ Me- sAsll
ett>ss. sA@h rs~~ ~ ~,ss,~@ ~p44
Nv. = r~rss ~ dsss~ vs~m ! t~s
swss - ~ afasN. sh~A vhsll<s.
- - " .ta$s, sAs sssss having sAtss
~ " asfss* ~ tvr~mvs.s, sA.l.
ls~esA tsssass sl.sils~xvs ~ es~s+
fhs asa 1ss, " ". trial sas =.
lesswd n, nssA lssre. asrss, sAstta.
amsae NE masses ss,ess~d heiAx i,sMAis
Csmss, AL three .shess - aassvsass,
inseMr~ss,s ssa - Nc. and ess MERE
aesiss IN ~ Alssn iuisseA than th~
ssstess df~nksra snd t,~p aahsAs. -
Who Nj prsjaasra she es~ " fases u
~lisaey. 1Ais Jap - snally empaMMst.
led. s~nsist~d NJ J. r. Mitchell. u. n.
Maxeeld, q. Weaver, II. n. l.emsa.
J. :. Nichala AMI z. u. Nichcla, and
failing - asr~c. ~as discharged. Il =
but simple justice % NJ. Price. 70 ~
that " u sl,nos. 1 stranger Ia Cresco.
and that the men selected BY him ~
Jurors, wsrs aos known IN him even BY
name.
The scconl jury. selected In l;he
manner .. tho 6.ss. BY Thomas Dale,
had among The namcs selected no
dtunkard. w presume fcr tho same
reason that good bailiir would decline
TO put horse thieves upon Jury 70
Try one 81 their gang. This jury con.
sisted II Danl. Platt, y. 1. Becker, II.
A. Maltby. Ole Swsnson, Goo. Beck,
and G. u. Ashley. Tho defence In
this trial was conducted BY A. d.
Wright and q. W. Adams. assisted In
hunting and procuring Testimony by
tho dissenting Juror IN tho first trial.
Through his unscrupulous efforts and
tho unyislliag perseverance, Of the
counsel for the defence. ~ array Of
testimony was produced that unloubt-
cdly loft question u doubt on tho
minds u dissenting Jurors in this trial.
and their disagreement. was the resul.
On this trial the prosecution was con.
Quoted With marked ability by II. I.
Reed and G. +. Breckenridge.
This result rendered third trial
necessary, tho selection u tho Jury
tlcyolving upon the Sheriff. who. for
some rcason ~ ~ entirely insxplicsblc.
made his liat a. exclusively from tip
piers anil their friends N il would have
been possible had his work been done
b. design. Aud when ono Of the class
was disposed u pcrcmptorily o. ether
wise, thc dissenting Juror IN tho frs.
trial had another u TIC same kind In
waiting to b. called Into tho box 10
complete the panel. The Jury In .L.
trial ~ finally ompsnnslled, was Elias
Powers. W. Il. Dobson. Joseph Odrsn.
II. q, Rand, n. W. Richards aud
A. w. Haskell. aud their verdict
mot guilty
This trial was conducted on the part
u tho prosecution. l,y II. 7. Heed.
who made m excellent examination II
The witnesses. and q. + breckenridge.
tho address u tho latter made u tho
Jury u IL close. having been mag
ni6ccnt effort. The defence. % III tho
second trial. WIS conducted BY A. d.
Wright and q. w. Adams, and their
management u tho case was such a. 10
reflect no profesuional di.crcdit upon
tAn;r tsr1;s.a skall n,,A nhiiifx