Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1901-11-28

divided with him the money received
from the sale Of the horses.
The testimony was contradicted by
the BedelIs, who have always main
tanned their innocence of the charge.
but certain conflicting statements in
their evidence tended directly to lend
some support to Goods story and
doubtless turned the balance against
them in the minds of the jury. This
want of agreement in the testimony Of
the two brothers was upon the pre-
else time of Franks arrival at nome on
the night OF June oath, when Good
claimed to have met him and divided
the proceeds Of the sale of the stolen
horses with him. In and of itself such
a discrepancy would probably not
have been deemed important, but for
Goods positive testimony.
After the conviction of the BedeIls,
Good was sentenced to a term in the
Wisconsin state refoTmatory. Since
his confinement at the reformatory, he
has made a sworn statement in the
presence of the superintendent that
his testimony given upon the trial
cOnvicting them of the crime was
| wholly false.
| IF true, this statement relieving the
Bedells of any completely in the crime
| for which they are imprisoned, entities
them to an absolute pardon. Doubt as
to its truth was raised by the fact
| that after Goods confinement in the
refOrmatory and but a few months
| prior to making the statement, he in
formed the district attorney who tried
the case for the state that he had been
offered inducements to make such a
statement to be used in securing the
pardon of the Bedell boys. The diff
fculty then presented was to deter
mine which of Goods statements were
true, the one to the district attorney
or the one to the superintendent.
all the testimony in the case and the
atfidayits filed upon the motion for a
new trial in the circuit court, and q
rigid and impartial examination Of
/ Good under circumstances best calcu-
lated to elicit the truth from him. The
first task have performed; the
second, ] have entrusted to Hon. Her
man GTOtopfOrst, a member OF the
state board of control, who was pre-,
ent at the trial OF the case in the
circuit court, though liking No part,
and to the Hon. C. W Brown, superin-
tendent of the reform2tory.
Upon their report and from my own
investigation, l am fully convinced
that Frank and Dick Bedell were
neither Of them implicated in any
manner in the stealing of tbs hc-1~7
for which they were tried aud convict
ed; that Frank Bedell I'd uot moo
William Good and did not receive any
part or share in the proceeds of the
sale of the stolen horses at the time
and place sworn to by Good upon the
trial, nor any time nor place, what
ever: that, in fact, Good was not at the
place of such meeting on the night Of
June oath, 1899, but was in attendance
upon a dance at the house of one War
necke, in the town of Marion, Juneau
county, more than twenty miles dis
tant; that all of the testimony of Viii
: liam Good given upon the trial which
connected Dick Dedell and Frank Be
dell, or either of them, with the crime
in question, whether directly or ind1
rectly, was false and procured testi
f mony; that such testimony was given
/ in anger and malice because Good had
or believed he had, grievance against
the Bedells and desired to do them the
greatest possible injury.
For these reasons, and upon all the
papers and records in the case, abso
lutte and unconditional pardon is grant
ed to Frank Bedell and to Dick Be.
Edell."
Sullivan Wants Pardon.
An application for the pardon OF
George Sullivan was heard by Govern
or La Toilette yesterday afternoon
Sullivan was committed from Vernon
couny in 1897, for murder in the
second degree, for a term of IA years.
Attorney J. P. Sullivan, the father OF
the convict, appeared for his son and
argued that pardon should be granted
because, he said, the young man had
been convicted contrary to law. Ac-
companying the application was a pc
tition signed by number of citizens
of Vernon county. No action was
taken.