The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-12-18
THE COPE-SHUCK CASE
The Remarkable Contest for the
Authorship ofJennings County.
Jury's Unique Verdict, by Which Shuck
Was Found Guilty and Acquitted, Sus-
tanned by the Supreme Court.

To the Editor of the indianapolis Journal:
In Wednesdays issue, under the caption
Noted Case Decided" the Journal gives
what purports to be history OF the Cope
Shuck contest for the authorship in Jen-
nings county. II is bristIng with error.
and the purpose OF this letter is give the
facts. w. A. Shuck served one year as
treasurer of Jennings county as an ap-
pointee to fill vacancy, his time expiring
as such in November. lSS6. when John ID.
Kidd succeeded him, having defeated Shuck
at the election, Shuck being a candidate
for reelection. ShuciS turned over TO Kidd
sl1144, and took Kids receipt therefor.
Kidd did not examine the books to ascer-
tain whether the amount paid him was cor
rect or not, but took what was paid him an
the successor of Shuck. He did not ex-
anime the books until the summer Of 1890,
when, knowing that he must soon account
to his successor. he counted the cash and
compared the same with the books to see
how he stood. In doing this he found a
shortage. Mr.. Kidd not only made per-
sonal examination, but called to his assist
ance two more competent persons. one
of whom was an expert, and they found
shortage of $2,35766, and that this shortage
was in Mr.. Shuck's administration while he
was acting as treasurer. Mr.. KIDD also
called Mr.. Shuck's attention to the shortage
ana asked him TO examine for himself; this
Shuck positively declined to do. After this
the election occurred, and Shuck was elect
ed over Cope by 80 majority. Kidd was dis
tressed about the shortage, and knowing
tnat IL did not occur during his four years
of administra ton as treasurer, and knowing
that he must soon account to his successor,
he filed with the Governor his affidavit and
asked that no commission be issued to Mr..
lnfi fha tor If.r1s I'd
This Governor Hovey did, as shown by the
case OF Hoyey; Governor VS. State on rel;
w w "A; Shuch d21 Ind. 5SS) Shack then paid
the money and took the following receipt,
which his attorney, the late Hon, J. ID.
New prepared for him:
VERNON, Ind, Nov. 20, 1890
$235766-Received of William A Shuclx.
ex-treasurer of Jennings county, Indiana,
and whose term OF Office expired as such
tbaf hep, N9E S 10; dSSS the sum of $500
| with which said Shuck was chargeable as
such treasurer, at said date. and which he
| has not accounted for nor paid over until
now, as shown by the books and receipts
| of said Office
| This clearly states what he paid, and why.
The next day Shucks attorneys called on
the Governor for the commission. Cope was
now claiming the Office by reason OF the
| to issue commission until the courts should
| determine to whom IL belonged The Jour-
nal article states that Mr.. Kidd filed an
| the shortage to be AS54.4 This is error:
no such affidavit was ever filed. Long after
the 1851 66 was paid the Board Of Commits
sioners had an examination made by ex-
Perts' and the amount was ascertained to
| be "a, s54.S4. After this examination Mr..
| Shuck had an examination by five OF his
| own partfsans in his own interest with the
| result that they privately stated that the
paid. This examination was made I'm four
| or five days. while it took experts over two
the five persons that Shuck had make the
| examination never went upon the witness
venientiy near when the trial was had
| The commissioners refused to approve
Shuck's bond until he had a commission or
had purged himself of The alleged defalca-
| ton. A change in the board at the Decem-
| Der session gave Mr.. Shuck majority. and
| the word Commission was stricken out.
Then, in broad daylight, Shuck came to the
and before the people realized what was go.
ing on he took possession of the office by
mob violence. Immediately, public senti-
| ment was at fever heat, and there was much
disposition to retake the Office. but better
counsel prevailed and Cope went into court
as law-abiding citizen to seek redress.
| THE TRIAL AND VERDICT.
Friends of both parties were on the jury,
| apd they were out twenty-four hours de-
| liberating, but failed to reach an agree
n1ent. AT last they effected a compromise
| by rendering a general verdict in favor Of
Mr. Shuck and by answering the following
interrogatories propounded to them, to-wit:
state of Indiana, Jennings County IS:
| I'm the Jennings Circuit Court May term,
1892. The State OF Indiana on the relation
| of John G. Cope William A. Shuck.
1.-The plaintiff submits the following spe-
| cial interrogatories in the above-enttled
cause, and asks the court that the jury be
| required TO answer the same in connection
| with their verdict.
HARRIS. LAWRENCE & TwEEDY.
Plaintiffs Attorneys
| 81. Did not Richard Osborn, under the in
struction and direction of William A. Shuck,
without the consent of John c. Cope or
any one acting for him, remove the lock
on the door entering from the courthouse
| hall into the Office of auditor of Jennings
county, Indiana, on the 9Th day Of Decem-
wv. C. SIMPSON. Foreman.
''2. Did not said Richard Osborn by d.
rection and instruction of William A. Shuck.
place OH and fasten to the said auditor
office door a lock, and give the keys there
Of to William a. Schuck. without the con-
sent of John c. Cope or any one acting for
him, on the 9th day of December. 1891, and
was not this the only outside door to the
~ wv. G. SIMPSON. Foreman.
deputies unlock the said door OF the audi
| tors office after the old lock was removed
and a new one put on by said Richard Os-
born by the use Of any one of the keys
that were used to unlock the lock removed
y ''1 wv. G. SIMPSON. Foreman
| ~ Did not William A Shuck, after the
| new lock was placed on the door OF the
| auditors Office by said Osborn, lock and I'M
| lock the door thereof with the keys that be-
| longed to the new lock placed thereon by
s'i'd oS00fH wv G. SIMPSON. Foreman.
.5. Did rot William A. shuck. without
the consent Of John c. Cope or his deputy
| or deputies, take by force the key to the
vault containing the public records OF the
| auditors office forcibiy from Martin Shep-
| herd the 9Th day OF December, 1891? Yes
wv. G.. SIMPSON, Foreman.
Sc Was the key to the vault OF the
| auditors Office ever returned TO John 6.
| Cope by William A. Shuck. or anyone else
for him. that was forcibly taken from
Martin Shepherd by William A. Shuck on
the 9Th day OF December. 1877 No.
wv. G.. SIMPSON, Foreman.
~ Was not John c. Cope In peaceabls
| possession of the auditors office aud
| itor of Jennings, Indiana, on the 9Th day
| OF December. 1891, and at the time the key
to the vault was forcibiy taken from Mar
| tin Shepherd. said Cope's deputy, and the
new lock was placed upon the outside
door by Richard Osborn at the request OF
| William a. ShuckP Yes.
''W. CT. SIMPSON, Foreman.
IS Did not the term OF auditor OF Jen-
nings county TO which Shuck was elected
| begin on or before Nov. Is. 1890? Yes.
NV. G. SIMPSON, Foreman.
80 Did not William 4, shuek. on Nov.