St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-10-08
Four Luekless Thpeshers
Killed by the Explosion Of
q Boiler.
Farmer Dean Makes a Shock
ing Mistake, Shooting His
Own Son.
Crap Shooters Engage in a
Serious Cutting ARRAY at
Grand Forks.
Special to the GLOBE.

Special 10 the GLOBE.
SIOUX CITY, TO-, Oct. From pres
ent appearances justice is in fair way
to Overtake at least one Of the parties
concerned in the murder of Rev.
George G. Haddock in this city, on the
Sd OF August. 1856. The supreme court,
after many delays on the part of the de
fense, has at last affirmed the Judgment
of the district court Of this county.
which sentenced Fred Munchrath Jr. to
l0ur years Imprisonment at Fort Madl-
son for tae part he took in the affair.
TO newspaper readers the details of the
case are yet familiar. This city was
startled on the morning of Aug. 4, 1887,
by the announcement that Rev. George
{. Haddock, pastor of the First
NJ. h. church, had been shot and
almost instantly killed on the
main street OF the city on the night
previous. The crime was mystery.
DR.. HaddOck had been active for some
time in enforcing the prohibitory law,
and to all the fact was patcnt that his
death was brought about by bis activity
in this direction. Ali agreed that he
had been murdered by the SalOOnmen,
the law. Weeks of investigation fol-
lowed, with very little progress in the
direction of finding the murderer, when
Harry l.. LeaVitt. the proprietor of
variety theater, and one of the most
bitter in the denunciation of the course
pursued by DR.. Haddock. made con-
feSsi0n, under promise of Immunity
from punishment. He told of con-
spiraey to whip the preacher, and how
the crowd gathered at an appointed
place where Hadd0ck would be obliged
to pass in going to his home, and how
John ArensdOrf. foreman of the Franz
Brewing company, shot HaddOck as he
approached the crowd. On his testi-
m0ny indictments for murder were re-
turned against John ArensdOrf. Fred
Munchrath, Jr., Harry L. Leayitt, George
freiber, G. L. Plath, Henry Peters.
Harry Sherman, Sylvester Ganda, AL
bert KOschnitski and Paul Leader.
Arensdorf was tried in March 1887. and
The jury disagreed. eleven standing
for acquittal and one tor conviction.
Separate trials had been granted on
demand of the defense and the state
CHOSE To-TRY MUNeEhATH
next. This trial occurred in Septem-
Der. 1887, and resulted in the conviction
OF Munchrath of the crime of man
and his sentence to four
years Imprisonment, and that he pay
the cost of the trial, amounting to
nearly $500. A motion for new trial
was Overruled, and an appeal taken.
The principal points on which this was
based were
~. The action of the trial court IN over
ruling eacn OF fourteen challenges by the de-
fense. of Jurors for cause. ca The adms-
Of
tended 10 show that actions for violations OF
the prOhibtoFy law were pending and that
an organization had been formed by the sa-
loonkeepers to maltreat persons active in
the laws. (3) That the court
erred i'll not instructing the jury that they
might find him guilty of an offense OF q
lower grade than manslaughter, and in so
instructing them that they could not SO ind.
On the first point of objection the su
pTeme court says:
During the empsneling Of the jury de-
fendant exhausted his twenty perem Dtory
challenges, but the jury as finally constituted
three of the jurors he had chal-
lengeo for cause. The statute requires that a
challenge must distinctly specify the facts
the cause OF challenge" We do
not hold that The facts constituting a cause
Of challenge should be stated in the language
Of the statute, but we do hold that the chal-
enge should show, with reasonable certainty,
Lhe ground unOn which it is based. 1t is the
nutv OF the court, ana lOG JQG JUROR. 10 Ue-
lermine whether or not his opinion disqual-
lies him to act as a juror conscientious
Juror may be in doubt as 10 whether the |
opinion he mas formed will affect his verdict, !
while the court may be entirely satitied that |
he would discharge the duties Of Juror |
IN partiality and III all respects as required |
by law Another juror might believe and |
state that he could listen TO the evidence and !
render verdict without regard TO his pre-
yiously formed opinion, while the court |
,;,rtf ha ioH hQp pYa min 6 iOn
whole that he could not discharge the duties |
IS a Juror properly. Under these circum- |
stances we are of the opinion that appellant |
JAILED 10 show that any Of the jurors In ques- !
ion were disqualified under the statute.
On the second point cited the court |
says:
Appellant complains Of the admission of |
certain testimony which tended TO show that |
litigation was pending in regard to saloons: |
hat defendant and others were present while |
some of the cases were being heard; that |
steps we're taken by Haddock and others to |
procure additional testimony, and that at |
.em pts were being made to organize the sa- !
oonkeepers and hire men 10 maltreat per- |
IONS connected with the prosecutions. on the |
grounds that the acts and conversations OBJ !
ected to were before the formation of the |
,lleged cons piracy. and that the converse
ions were not in the presence OF the defend |
INT We have examined the objections made, I
put do not find them to be well founded. The /
referred 10 were, IN the main, |
explanatory of the acts Of different persons, |
,r tended 70 show the details of the organiza-
ion that ended in murder. We discover no .
erroneous ruling that could have prejudiced |
defendant
On the third point the court says:
Appellant contends that the court erred |
IN not instructlng the jury that they might |
ind him guilty OF an offenSe OF q lower |
.rade than manslaughteF, and in so instruct |
ng them that they could not SO find. The |
murder of HaddOck was clearly proven and /
lot denied Manslaughter was the lowest |
iegree OF The offense charged in the indict-
nent of which the defendant could have |
,een convicted under the evidence. The |
court did not, therefore. err IN not submitting |
% the jury the question of his guilt of an
,ffense of lower degree. Tho evidence as
o the guilt of the defendant was conflict
ng, but we cannot say that ii does not sus-
ain the verdict. We find no error in the
ecord prejudicial to the defendant
Since his trial and conviction Munich
'ath has been out on bail, and has con-
iucted himself in an upright and honor
lbIe manner. In fact, he has been
counted a good citizen since he attained
lis majority, having lived here since he
vas an infant. His father is a member
If the city council, position he has
leld for many years. Already there is
ak of a move for pardon. but this
will be vigorously opposed by the per-
Die who have been active in enforcing
he law against violatorS of the prohibi
ory law. and who were active in secur-
ng Munchrath's conviction. MUNICH
-ath's friends claim that he was un-
in that his trial came before
he final trial of Arensdorf, wherein an
lcquittal was secured, and the cases
against the other eonspirators III GUS
5odY were dismissed by the state,
t being deemed impossible to Sc
,ure a conviction on the evidence
lf LeaYitt and the others who turned