The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-01-30

wet all before supper voted for the acquittal of
each one, think After the ballot was taken
we discussed the case again for perhaps an hour.
In the discussion we seemed to be unanimous in
had had S hand in the conspiracy. A Mat.
tier. however. had the sympathy
of nearly all the jurors. We talked over his
case. and while we believed he was guilty, we
felt that he had repented. He saw what he
had done, and rectifed it soon as possible. I
compared him to young man OF good motives
panions asked TO assist in . robbery: On
the spur of the moment he joined the thieves,
but as soon as he received his share OF the
money he realized what he had done and at
once returned the money TO the owner, and re-
pented for his misstep / felt that Matter had
repented. as have said, but still there was
proof that he was in the conspiracy and my
conscience dictated that should vote to find
him guilty, and did So"
About 10 o'clock we took another ballot, but
there was no material change in the result. we
then slept for an hour two. and took another
ballot, with the same result. About midnlgnG
we all went to sleep and slept for two or three
hours During the after part OF the night but
two or three ballots were TAKEN and while tney
brought material change one or two men
voted for conviction. and it became evident that
the Jurors were gradually coming over for con-
began TO stand 10 to 2. and the few ballots we
took during the forenoon wore with that result
The two men who held out for acqulttal were
Gardener and Peters.
1.-The reception of telegram by Messick that
his mother was dead. cast a gloom over the jury
room, but it had no influence, whatever, on the
verdict and its reception not used in any
way to influence anyb body to vote for conviction.
soon after dinner Saturday, Gardener
and Peters began caucusng great deal. and as
it looked like change was coming. no ballot
was called for. Along about the middle of the
afternoon Gardener and Peters proposed TO the
ten that had been voting for the conviction of
ALL that il they would vote for the acQuitta1 of
of Matter, they 1.-THE twol would vote for the
conviction of Coy and Bernhamer. The propo-
sition was made openly, but each man of the
ten consulted. was the last one asked,
and when 1 said, Yes, certainly, WILL Car
boner said he afraid I wouldn't consent to
it, and announced to me that all had agreed to
the proposition. The vote then taken by
ballot, and the result was the verdict
"When the ballot was cast, both Gardener and
Peters said in the presence of US all. and with
out any asking, that the telegram received by
Mr.. Messick had nothing to do with the propo-
sition they made. MIR. Peters said. have been
coming over all day. and vote this way be-
cause want to go home with clear conscience.
/ believe returning just verdict
After the verdict had been rendered Messrs
Gardener and Peters reiterated their statement
that the reception of the telegram by Mr..
Messick had no influence them whatever.
The most unwarrantsd assertion OF all that has
been made is the one in the Sentinel that Mr..
Messick would never have voted for conviction
had he not received the telegram announcing
the death of his mother. He began yotin G
for conviction Friday night and was one of tho
most ardent advocates for the conviction OF all.
-
and he said he wanted me to make statement
for him to the effect that he voted his con-
science dictated. and. as much as be desired to
get home to attend the funeral of his mother.
he would have remained in the jury-room q week
rather than vote contrary to his conscience, or
in any way induce any other juror to do SO. The
fact Is, the reception of the telegram had moth
ing whatever to do with the agreement reached.
Peters. as he said himself, began coming over to
the ten Saturday morning, and the fact that Car
boner voted for the conviction of all on Friday
evening assured us that ne would not stand out
after Peters came over"
Juror Gardener confirmed Mr.. Dickinson's
state ment that Mr. Messick did not in any way
attempt to influence himself aud Mr.. Peters by
appealing to them to vote for conviction he
conld go home to attend his mothers funeral.
and he said that he authorized such state
ment to be made. Jurors Curtis, Brumhack
and Bunger also SAID that there was 10 improp-
err influence used TO secure the vo ties of Messrs.
Gardener and Peters for conviction, and that the
reception of the telegram by Mr.. Messick had
nothing whatever to do with the agreement.