Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1901-11-28

divided with him the money received
4. from the sale of the horses.
"The testimony was cOntradicted by
the Bedells, 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 CT
| the two brothers was upon the pre-
| else time of Franks arrival at home 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 BedelIs,
Good was sentenced to a term in the
Wisconsin state reformatoPy. 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 it's 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
statement to be used in securing the
pardon Of the Bedell boys. The diff
ficulty then presented was to deter
mine which of Goods statements were
true, the one to the district. attorney,
or the one to the superintendent.
This necessitated a careful analysis Of
all the testimony in the case and the
affidavits filed upon the motion for a
new trial in the circuit court, and a
rigid and impartial examination OF
Good under circumstances best calcu
lated to elicit the truth from him. The
first task have performed; the
second, I have entrusted to Hon. Her
man GrOtOphOrst, a member of the
state board of control, who was pre-
ent at the trial Of the case in the
circuit court, though taking no part,
and to the Hon. c. w. Brown, superin- !
tendent of the refOrmatOry.
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 the horses
for which they were tried and convict
ed that Frank BedelI did not meet
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
uecke, in the town of Marion, Juneau
county, more than twenty miles dis
tant; that all of the testimony of vii
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 indi-
rectly, was false and procured testi-
mony; that such testimony was given
in anger and malice because Good had,
or believed he had, a grievance against |
the Bedells and desired TO do them the |
greatest possible injury.
For these reasons, and upon all the |
Capers and records in the case, absO- !
lutte and unconditional pardon is grant |
ed to Frank BedelI and to Dick Be |
dell
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 term of ii years. !!
Attorney J. P. Sullivan, the father Of !
the convict, appeared for his son and !
argued that pardon should begranted |
because, he said, the young man had |
been convicted contrary to law. Ac- |
the application was a pc
tition signed by number of citizens
of Vernon county. No action was
taken.