The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-02-01
Farther Disclosures With References to the
Finding Against Coy and BTnhamsr.
Jurors Admit Tasy We're Iaducsd to Vote For
Conviction By FAlss representation,
And That ThsY Were Influenced Largely By
tbs Distress Of hr. Nsssick.
Abundant Facts Obtained, Supported by
Afidavits, to Sustain Motion to Set
Aside the wrongful Finding.

The verdict returned by the jury in the
election conspircy case, an account OF
which from the Sunday Sentinel is repro
duced In this issue, continued TO be the
alI-absorbing topic of conversation yester-
day. Every body discussed the matter and
scarcely person could be found but that
expressed great surprise st the verdict.
The unanimous opinion had been that
there would be disagreement. The
fact that the agreement was reached
Nafter the Jurors had been disagreeiug for
twenty-six hours, was much commented
upon, and many declared that the verdict
could not have been secured by fair means.
The result has not depressed the convict
ed men as much as 1t has many OF their
friends. Some of the latter look upon 1t as
a personal calamity. No man in Indiansp-
oils Is better known than Simeon Coy, and
there is probably no man who has render
ed as msny personal fsvors to friends
in trouble as he; therefore it is not surpris-
ing that bis conviction was received with
so many expressions of regret, Many
we'll. known Republicans, who were anxious
for convlc ton, now that it has actually
happened, are sorry that it is so,
Mr.. John r. Pearson, the well known
Republican Couneilman-though not one
of the clamoring partisans referred to
above-when ask ed what he thought OF the
frankly that 1 don't know what to
think or say, but DO know that my re-
lations with Sim Coy in the Council have
always been very pleasant and that |
never knew hinr to attempt anything
wrong or Unfair"
This was the expression in substance of
all of Mr.. Coy's Republican associates in
\ Council.
The defendants and their counsel have
been busy since the conviction, collecting
evidence upon which to base a motion &c
< set aside the verdict. From the statements
OF some of the jurors, it appears that the
verdict was undoubtedly obtained through
| false representations and the frantic ap-
! peals OF uror Messick, who had received
dispatch announcing bis mothers death.
These facts will be set out and abundantly
Sustained by sffidsvits The attorneys for
the defense ere confident of having the
verdict set aside or, if not that, reversal
j Jacob CaTbiaer, the Marshall County
Juror remained over yesterday,
stopping ct tie Enterprise H0.
tel He said he very much
regretted !hat he had heen induced TO vote
for conviction. When questioned about
the MISTER he said hs was sorry he had
signed the verdict two minutes alter he
had done so.
|. In giving an account of what tran
|
biner said that soon after they had
J retired to deliberate John L. Davis, tie
4 foreman, said he was there to stay until
April unless conviction was obtained, to
Zhich Mr.. Gardner replied that he would
by with him unless the defendants were
kqUitted. Mr.. Gardner said further, that
be maintained his position until he was
FINALLY induced to vote for conviction in
order to let Mr.. Messick go home, as they
had sent word to the judge that they could
not agree, and he had responded by telling
them to stay there. Mr.. Davis
the foreman, claimed to have
Authority, Mr.. Gardiner said, to promise
Dthe jurors in favor of acquittal that there
would be no imprisonment in case OF con-
= viction, but merely nominal fine, and he
and others offered to make up the amount
of the fine right there. He further said
that several times during the day Juror
Messick, with tears in his eyes, begged him
TO agree with tie Others in order
that che could get boms and
she was buried, He said that if it had not
been for Messick's touching appeals he
would never have voted for conviction, as
it was not his verdict then and is not now.
he did not believe the defendants guilty.
bHe said, furthermore, that he would not
have consented to the agreement had he
/ not believed Davis when he told him there
would be but small fine assessed, and he
thought that would be cheaper for
the defendants than to go through snoth.
er trial and be Obliged to pay a large
amount for attorneys fees. MIR. Gardner
said he would write letter to Judge Woods
stating substantially these facts. He will
leave for his home this morning.
Juror James Peters, from Perry county,
was seen just before he started for home at
O'Clock yesterday afternoon. He talked
much in the same strain that Mr.. Carol ner
did. BE said that the jury would not have
agreed il Messick's telegram had not been
Y admitted to the jury room, but that the
principal reason he consented to con7ic
ton was that Foreman DAVIS claimed 70
know that nothing but fine would be i'm.
posed, and that he thought he was doing
the defendants a kindness in voting for
conviction, when it was impossible to Sc
u cure a. acqulttal, as il would save them
the expenses of another trial. He also
said be was going to write Judge Woods 8
letter II which he would Incorporate this
fact.
James B. Curtis, the Republican Juror
n from Jennings County, also remained over
SuDday, and he corroborated Messrs. Peters
4 and Gardner, and said that the
jury would not have agreed
but through sympathy for Messick
and the further fact that foreman Davis
n guaranteed that only small fine would be
AlH frCoCA IL OnoC VI u 1Es Our
It's Is al honest old gentleman, and was %.
oldest man on the jury. He is the )ne
that complained of being deaf.
Jesse Brumbach, the DeKalb Counts
Juror, who voted for a conviction from thu
Beginning, was also found st the Enter
prise yesterday. He was another who
said his verdict was based or
I the promise of Davis that there would bt
10 Improvement. and be was led to be
heve that Davis had authority to speak a
he did.
Albert Messick, the Juror said to be TIL
cause OF the compromise verdict on &C
OF bis mothers death, left for hi
ONE st O'Clock yesterday morning, bu
efore he got away a Sentinel reporter haC
70 extended conversation with him re
sardiDg the inside work OF the jury. III
said:
''The first ballot taken was before suppe,
On Friday night. was opposed to takinl
~ ballot then. / said, Gentlemen, We haYt
been hearing testimony here for two weeks
md pefoTe we undertake to agree upon
Cerdict We should talk over the eVidencl
bgether.' But Jurors Davis and Dunlsv
nrged the necessity of taking ballot i'm
u IMMEDIATELY, and this was done. That wa
ne only time l voted for acduita
and said at the time that, as they forced ms
to ballot, would not vote my sentiments
Every ballot after that voted for conyic
ton. i thought at times that the eyidenc,
did not justify such q verdict; then
Ia - I-N~- H.. L. 4