The Hot Springs star. (Hot Spings [Hot Springs], Dakota [Dakota Territory, i.e. S.D.]) 1886-189?, 1889-10-11
the SENTENCE ArFInMED.

Tile Iowa supreme Court AtiirMs tho Sem
tcnce of the Court Below.
The Iowa supreme court, in session at
Des Moines. has affirmed the verdict and
sentence i'll the case of Fred Munchrath, jr.,
convicted ut Sioux City. Iowa, of man
slaughter in the II ,ddock murder case.
Fred Munchratl, jr., was the only one of
ten men indicted for tie murder of Rev.
Geo. G.. Haddock who was convicted. He
was indicted with John Arensdorf, Harry
l.. @l-eayitt, Paul Leader, Henry Peters.
Geo. Trieber. Louis llath, Harry Sller-
man, Albert Koschnitski and Ganda for
murder, and also for conspiracy, and his
trial ON the charge of murder was begun on
September Z, 1881, before Judge
Wakefield. The counsel for the state in
the case was County ATTORNEY s.. NJ.
Marsh, M. ID. OConnell, aud Hubbard,
Spalding ~ Taylor. Tho prisoners
counsel were o. Z. Treaway, G. Nv. Argo,
l. Pendleton. s.. L. Lynn, M. Nj. Gray,
and u. w. Kellogg.
On September II the case was sub
mitted to the jury, ind after m all-night
session it brought in Il verdict finding de-
PENDANT guilty of manslaughter. Munch-
rath's counsel at once filed a motion for II
new trial, but OH the Both of the same
month Judge Wakefield overruled the mo-
tion and sentenced the convicted man to
four years imprisonment iu the peniten-
tiary ut Fort Madison. An appeal bond
was mt once given of $1,000 and ninety
days allowed for filing papers of appeal to
the supreme court. The case has since
that time been before the supreme court.
and has been directly in charge of George
w. Argo. Munchlath's leading counsel.
Last March. whom the present %citycouncii
of Sioux City caucuscd on the councils
elective officers for the year, Fred Munch-
rath secured the caucus vote for street
supervisor of the Second distri. t. He was
elected i'll open council for that office, but
two democratic members, Aldermen Cody
and De(iuibert. voting against him. He
has since Tiled the office, which now be-
| CONES vacant.
In concluding the decision the supreme
court finding is as follows: APPELLANT ill.,
sisss that he could not he convicted OF
manslaughtcr unless the dea'h of Haddock
was accomplished i'll pursuance of II con-
splracy TO which he was u party, md if
this conspiracy only contemplated the
whipping of Haddock, and the shooting
was not contemplated IL not as ented to
10y him, that lie would not be responsible
for it. But the whipping would have been
unlawful, and it is settled that one who
conslires to do an unlawful net is liable
for the acts OF his co-%conspirators done in
pursuance of the common design. De-
PENDANT is not free from liability for the
shooting by reason of tie fact that the in
jury done WIS greater than that intended
by the conspirators. Numerous other
questions. including the correctness of the
charge % the jury and the suiliciency OF
the cvi .elce 10 sustain the verdict, are
dismissed by counsel. We have con
sidcred them all with care. The charge as
II whole was fair to defendant and the pr
tions criticised by counsel was correct. or
II I If a nature to mislcad the jury. The
eNidcn . us t, the guilt of defendant was
conflicting. but We cannot say that it does
IL, I sustain the verdi t. We find no error
in the ,es ri p%rejudicial to defendant.
The judgment of the circuit court is
affirmed.
ilunchrath's friends propose now to APP
peal to the governor for pardon.