The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-02-01

eight ballots in all, according to the count
of one of the Democratic jurors:
There were no material changes
in the ballots was un at Yesterday tHs a s%s
that an sgreement was made to acquit
Mattler under conditions. These condi'
tions were that an agreement should be
reached as to the other two defendants
No more ballots were taken after this, as to
Matter, until the final one. The after
noon was a busy one as to the other
every few minutes, and the
result was the same during the
entire afternoon-Ten for conviction and
two for acquittal The two jurors who
voted all this time for scquittal were
James Peters, of Don Juan, Perry County,
and Jacob Gardner, of Bremen, Marshall
County. 1t was at noon that three Demo
Gratis permanently deserted the defendants,
and thus turned the tide toward convic-
ton. They were Albert Messick, of Mes
sick, Henry County, Jesse Brum-
bach, Corunns, DeKalb County,
and William II. Bunger, of North Land
ing, Ohio county. OF these Bunger was
the last to go. Brumbach voted for con-
victlon nearly every ballot, and he was
quickly followed by Messick.
Upon returning from breakfast, yester-
Juror Messick, which stated that his aged
mother, who had been sick for long time,
had died during the night. This,
of course, cast a gloom over the jury room,
and Mr.. Messick felt very sad the balance
of the day. There are excellent reasons
for believing that this telegram scared
the verdict. Several times during the day
Mr.. Messick made frantic appeals to his
feilo y jurors, who were in the minority,
to come over aud settle the mat.
ter, so be could go home. Two
of the jurors failed to vote at the time, but
finally the pressure brought to bear was
more than they could withstand, and at
5 80 o'clock the final and decisive ballot
was taken. Jurors Peters and Gardner
consented to vote yes as to whether there
was conspiracy, and then for conviction
as to Coy and Bernhamer. The Republi-
cans then voted not guilty as to Matter.
The verdict was prepared by Juror John
| L. Davis, of Montgomery County, who
| had been elected foreman. 1t read: eve,
the Jury, find the defendants Coy and Bern
hsmer guilty as charged in the indictment,
and we, the jury, find the defendant Mat
tier rot guilty as charged in the indict-
ment."
Foreman Davis then indicated to
Deputy United States Marshal tStein
| that verdict had heen agreed upon,
and asked that the Judge be sent for.
] officer Stein, after communicating this
fact to Marshal Hawkins, took the jury to
/; the Grand Hotel for supper while they
were waiting for the Judge. They were
returned to the court room at 1880 O'Clock,
| the Judge having arrived in the meantime.
After the jury was discharged Juror
| Gardner said that had it not been for
Messick's telegram there would never
/ have been On agreement. He appealed
to Us in behalf of his dead mother 10 let
him go home" said Messick, land we
came to the conclusion we might as well
! do it."
Juror Peters said he did not believe that
! the evidence was really sufficient to con =
Wet the defendants, and that under
/ no circumstances was he in favor OF
imprisor ment. He thought the testimony
was possibly sufficient 10 justify small
| fine
Juror Messick said that from the first be
was inclined toward conviction, although
ne voted several times for acquittal. He
said he was born and reared Democrat,
! and rad always voted that ticket, but that
| he realized tina Democrats sometimes did
| wrong as well as Republicans, and
when hey did he believed in pun.
ishing them for it. He said he felt great
Teluctancy in voting guilty, and that IN
der no circumstances would he favor a
severe penalty.
| 1neIe were Out lev gOOu IalkeIS Ou Luc
| Jury, and they were favorable to con-
viction. The arguments in the jury room
IN favor of conviction were mostly made
by Foreman Davis and Juror Dunlap, OF
Jefferson County, who is said to be ward
politician at Madison, They used every
sort of influence in their power to secure q
conviction of all of the defendants at the
outset, and If they had continued in that
course doubtless a disagreement would
have been the result. But by giving away
as to Matter those who favored acquittal
were tempted by this pretense Of fairness.
| Jurors Peters and Gardner, who stood out
for an acquittal until the very last were, not
ready takers. Mr.. Peters is an old man
and has not taken very great interest IN
politics, and is very quiet and in no way
aggressive. Juror Gardiner, who staid with
him, is not man OF much experience, and
has none Of the faculties OF leader among
men. BE said that most of the Jurors felt
bound by the Judges charge, and that il
ii had not been for that there would moi
have been a possibility OF a verdict.
In speaking of the addresses made be.
fore them, nearly all of the Jurors were
unanimous in saying that the Judges
charge had the greatest influence, and was
regarded as the strongest argument made
for the prosecution. OF the speeches o.
counsel, all agreed that Mr.. Kern made
the ablest and most effective speech. ia
rors Gardner and Messick said it was the
best speech they ever heard, Juror Gardner
said that ClsypooPs speech was not well
received by those who were inclined to
ward an acquiLtsl, because OF its bitter
ness. Several of the jurors were pleased
with Mr.. Sellers speech, and one of then
remarked that it had more effect thar
Clsypoops