The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1890-04-23
Before the Pardon Board.
Remarkable Depositionsin in Be-
half Of the Nicely Boys.

Gilbert and s. J McCarrell, two of the lead
ing attorneys Of the Dauphin county bar,
while the interests of the people were guard
ed by r. j. Kooscr, Esq. of Somerset, and
Hon. John Cessna. of Bedford.
Particular stress was laid upon the testi-
mony of one Dr. G.. r. Brown, whose depo-
sition was taken at Elm Grove, West Nir-
ginia. about ten days previous TO the meet
ing of the Pardon Board, and which was
submitted to the Board to show that the
conviction of the murderers was due TO a
trick of Constable John Rauch, the officer
who arrested them.
DR.. Brown saws: ] asked Rauch how be
convicted the Nicely boys. lie answered /:
Easy enough / said Did you have any
positive evidence against them He laugh
ed and said nothing Again | said How
did you get along with the bat and pocket
book that you got from the Nicely boys
lie said 4 will tell you, Brown. ] fixed
the hat and wallet the hat l madea mistake
in: / go. the hole in the rim and should
have had it in the crown. fixed the wallet
so nice that one Of The women swore that
she had not seen it for five years and that
Tmberger carried it in his bootleg with sl5,-
900 in il the greater part of the time and bad
not soiled the stitches How did you get
along with the two mems evidence that
swors they saw the Nicely boys on the pike
the night of the MURDER All right Ranch
replied 1 was only afraid | had got tie
time too regular, but we knew the jurymen-
They were not the Nicely boys friends, You
understand say, Rauch, what did you do
with the first advertisement when the wom-
en- described the murders He replied
Don't you forget it, took good care that
none of them was brought to the trial Say,
Rauch. ! said, You would not give away
those two innocent men for the sake of the
reward would yon9 Yes, by -, twenty,
he replied, and said further, Any man in
the world
To this absurd story counsel for the Com
monwealih answered
/. Thai J. O. Rauch had not testified alone
TO the condition and appearance Of the hat
and pockeibook, but was supported by
the testimony of Rufus Shaffer, Howard
Camp and Jos. W. Ambrose, and the case
was fully made ont if even Rauch were
omitted from the list of witnesses.
.. Rauch's election as constable and his
commission showing his appointment as
special detective by the District Attorney,
with the approval of the court of this coun-
ty, were offered as evidence Of his character.
3. The rules of the Board of Pardons per
init and reqHire dispositions TO be taken with
in the county. and yet with months of time
and two hearings actually had on other
questions in Somerset, they had failed 10
cal, and had not dared TO call, rny witnesses
TO assail his character
4. That DR. Browns deposition was
taken in violation of both the general rule
of the Board. requiring depositions To lie
taken in the county where the crime was
com .nitted, and Of the special rule for this
case ordering that it be taken in Charleston,
w. Va, not later than lst April, when in
fact It was taken in Elm Grove, in differ
ent county, on the 10Th of April.
;. That counsel for Commonwealth did
not know, and could not know if the party
who appeared aud testified before the Justice
in Elm Grove is the same fellow who in his
brief career of several weeks in our county
succeeded in getting himself in our jail for
crime charged.
O. That Brown is a wandering horse doc
tor. travelling this and adjoining counties,
Maryland and West Virginia. whose papers
state he is from Boston. Mass, and whose
deposition fixes his home at Cleveland, o.
that in his career oe several weeks in this
county he succeeded in having a warrant
issued against him by Mr.. William Baldwin
for procuring horse by false preteuses
and fraudulent representations, and Con-
stable Raueh, in execution of this warrant,
followed him through Bedford into Fulton
county where he arrested him and brought
him back; and that it was on his return
with this fellow under arrest tha. this abb
surd story is alleged to have been told to
his prisoner.
e The affidavit of Deputy Sheriff MeMil-
len shows that this Doctor" was kept in
our jail eleven days. and secured his dis
charge by some settlement of the case that
he restored the horse to Mr.. Baldwin and
left The county.
s. That since the trial of the case, aud but
week before the argument at Harrisburg.
Mr.. Kooser had taken the depositions of
sereR additional witnesses of high standing
at Ligonier which were offered and read
showing that Joe Nicely bad worn a brown
derby hat as described, with piece out Of
the rim, before the murder, and that it was
in that same condition the night of his
arrest.
o. That The story on its face was the sheer
est absurdity. impossible that it could be true
If even told 10 Brown; incredible that it
should be told a prisoner under arrest
wholly improbable, both from the character
of the witness and the labored effort Of the
witness 10 get even with Mr.. Rauch. IS
shown by the face of the deposition and lis
studied effort at detail.
Lincoln shaulis. in deposition, also de-
tailed an alleged conversation with Rauoh,
Of the essential evidence in the case.
number of the most reputable citizens
Of Somerset county furnished testimony in
dispositions that shauIis character for truth
and veracity was bad in this county, where
he had worked at saw mills for a number
Of years. Defendants counsel attempted to
establish his good character by witnesses
who had known him in Westmoreland
county, but cross-examination developed
that most of these witnesses lived 1--WE or
six miles away from his fathers home, while
many of them didn't know where his home
was, and that since 1881 Lincoln Shaniis had
only been at home one summer, when he
assisted bis father on the iarm, and on sun
dry brief visits during this period Of nine
years and in fact he had been comparative
stranger to the neighborhood since his boy
hood
A large number Of petitions, signed by
people living along the line of the Pennsyl-
yania and B. & o. Railroads, in Wesimore-
land county. praying for commutstion of
sentence, were presented to the Pardon
Board. The names of only few, if any.
residents of Somerset county were attached
to these petitions. A number of coumn-
nications were submitted to the Board
from lawyers in Westmoreland Indiana
and Somerset counties, some of whom were
retained by the defendants, and none OF
whom appeared in the trial of the case, ask
ing for a communication Of the death penalty