The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1900-04-03
[From Satur days Daily.l

William Henderson has been found
The life sentence is imposed by the
statute and the court has no discretion
in the matter. The jury decided, at 9:05
o'clock Saturday morning, that William
Henderson was one of the men who
bound, gagged, burned and tortured
John Hartong on the night Of December
2, 1887. 1t was said some time last fall
that one Atlee Pomerene was engaged
in the business of having people in
dicted for political effect. The verdict
vindicates Pomerene and suggests fur
ther that If it is true that an indictment
was had for political effect it would be
well to inject large measure of poll
tics into each session Of the grand jury.
From the testimony adduced on the
trial it will hardly be contended that
there is not ample opportunity for more
such political" indictments.
The Jury retired at about 2 o'clock
Friday afternoon and soon after took
ballot. The proposition was whether
the defendant was guilty of murder as
charged. 1t was said that they stood
= to s. but any rate little later they
STOOD 9 to g. The impression gained cir
culation that the three were for ac-
quittal but that proposition had not
been voted upon specifically, the ques-
ton being whether he were guilty of
first degree. At about midnight it was
decided by the jury that slight rest be
had and an attempt to take the rest was
made. 1t was not till morning that the
indication was that a verdict would be
reached. Fear was present in the
minds of some of the jurors that no ver-
dict would be had at all and 1t was
with feeling of pleasure that the OBJ
jectors were found to be waning. Their
argument became less demonStrative
and it seemed that they must soon sue
cumb to the preponderance Of numbers
and testimony. At midnight there was
a heated argument, without acrimony
but none the less spirited and some of
the Jurors laid down the law in a man.
ner that made the great legal argu-
ment of Attorney Grant look faded and
worn. The argument was not just or
thodox, but 1t was effective. After the
Jurors had slept over 1t the effect was
very noticeable.
The Jurors who held for a lower ver-
dict than first degree are said to have
been Charles S. Cock, Daniel Lenker
and William w. Figley, all Of Canton.
1t is said, now that the jury has been
discharged, that none Of these jurdos
were for acquittal but were voting
against the proposition of guilty as
charged with view Of arriving at
verdict Of manslaughter. Some of the
jurymen contended that the law did
not make a crime like the one commit
tied at Greentown murder in the first
Ndegree, as. purpose and intent were not
present. A majority of the jury thought
the men that committed that henious
offense meant to do what they in fact
did do, which was the common sense
wa y of looking at It.
Brainard Rohn played an important
part in the matter of getting verdict.
In order to operate the more successfully
he went over the ranks of the so-called
insurgents and voted with them for q
little time. He was a first degree man
all the while but II didn't seem SO from
his arguments and the noise he made.
But when the foreman had called the
names for the last time, and all had
come over, 1t was found that Rohn was
very hard to convince. He had sue
ceeded, by Joining the men who opposed
first degree murder, In assisting in get
ting them over and then he made
great show at being hard to get at.
1t is on record, however, that he finally
succumbed to pressure, though those
Jurors who were onto the plan were
SffllilHS duulDly WHeI lie Ilndlly gave III.
He was the last man to Join the ma
jority again.
From the outset nobody in the Jury
room believed William Henderson not
guilty. The splendid arguments of his
counsel had attracted few to the
manslaughter theory but not one be-
lieved that he was not guilty and not
one put faith In the alibi defense to con-
slider II seriously. The alibi, as a mat
ter of fact, was totally disregarded by
the jury. Manifestly William Hender-
son could not have been at Greentown
on the night of December O. 1897, and
have been at the saloon of Tony Piero
also, at the same time. The jury, every
man of them believed that the defen-
dant was at Greentown that night and
said 90 by their verdict. BY SO saying
they said, in effect. that he was not at
the Piero saloon that night, which d.
rectly controverted the testimony of
witnesses who took the stand to fur
Nther the allbi defense. AS soon as the
alibi was disregarded, which must have
been very early. as no Juror voted that
he believed 1t. there was nothing left
upon which defense could stand, save