Union County courier. [volume] (Elk Point, Union County, D.T. [S.D.]) 187?-1913, 1889-10-09
THE sENrExCE ArrIRnEn

The lows Sapseme Court Amrms the Sen
teAOs - tho Court Below.
The Iowa supreme court, ID session II
Des MoinSs, has affirmed the verdict snd
sentence in the case Of Fred Munchrath, H.,
convicted at Sioux City, Iowa. Of man.
slaughter in the Haddock murder case.
Fred Aunchrath, jr., was the only one Of
ten men indicted for the murder of Rev.
Geo. G. HAddockMho VAS convicted. He
was indicted VIII John Arcnsdorf. Harry
Z. Leavitt, Paul Leader, Henry Peters,
Geo. Trieber, Louis Plath, Harry Eher.
man. Albert Koschnitsh and GsndA for
murder, and also Tor conspiracy, and his
trial ON IL SAasss of murder was begun on
Nss:sss... siss:ss;. 4 7. e..ss: 6: i.es % 4
the case was County Attorney 8. n.
Marsh, N. D. O'Connell, and Hubbard,
Spalding h Taylor. The prisoner .
counsel were O. G. Tredway, @. w. Argo,
l. Pendleton. =. F. Lynn, N. n. Gray,
and G. w. Kellogg.
On September II the case was SUBJ
mitted to the jury, and after an all-night
session it brought in verdict finding de.
fendant guilty Of granddaughter. Nunch-
rath's counsel at once fled q motion for a
new trial, but on the 3Oth OF the same
month Judge Wakefield overruled the mo-
tion and sentenced the convicted man to
four years imprisonment in the peniten.
tiary at Fort Madison. An appeal bond
was at once given Of $1,000 and ninety
days allowed for fling papers of appeal to
the supreme court. Tho case has since
that time been before the supreme court,
and has been directly In charge Of George
w. Argo, Muhchrath's leading counsel.
Last March, when the present citycouncil
Of Sioux City caucused on the councils
elective officers for the year, Fred MUNICH
rath secured the caucus vote for street
supervisor Of the Second district. He was
elected in open council for that Office, but
two democratic members, Aldermen Cody
and DeGuibert, voting against him. He
has since filled the office, which now be-
comes vacant.
In concluding the decision the supreme
court finding is as follows: APPELLANT in
sists that he could not be convicted Of
manslaughter unless the death Of Haddock
was accomplished in pursuance Of con-
spiracy to which he was party, and II
this conspiracy only contemplated the
whipping Of Haddock, aud the shooting
was not contemplated and not assented to
by him, that he would not be Responsible
for it. But the whipping would have been
unlawful, and it is settled that one Who
conspires to do an unlawful act is liable
for the acts Of his co-conspirators co done in
pursuance of the common design. De.
fendant is not free from liability for the
shooting by reason of the fact that the in
jury doue was greater than that intended
by the conspirators. Numerous other
questions, including the correctness of the
charge 10 the jury and the suficiency Of
the evidence to sustain the verdict, are
dismissed by counsel. We have con-
sidered them all with care. The charge as
q whole was fair to defendant and the por-
tions criticised by council WAS correct, or
mt Ct nature to mislead the jury. The
evidence as TO the guilt ct defendant was
conflicting. but We cannot say that it does
net sustain the verdit. We fihd no error
in the record prejudicial {, defena aant.
The judgment Of the circuit court is
affirmed.
Munchrath's friends propose now to ap-
peal to the governor for pardon.