New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1902-06-25
: ] :
Tanke Found Guilt Of Muir
der III 'irst De- gree
JURY TAKES ONLY THREE VOTES.
Motion Made for
Tanke IS Ind lff =

.MOIlOn WADE OF b
Tankc IS Indlff - =
Guilty Of murder IN the first deefee is
the verdict Of the Jury that has toeen
charged with the serious matterof trying
the case Of Frank Tanke The verdict
was rendered on the same day the jury
was charged By the Judge Of the sibley
County Court. AS near as can be learned
it required but three votes to decide ard
the jury stood seven @ FIVE on the first
ballot and nine TO three On the second.
e Tanke was present IN the court room.
when the verdict was read and did not
appear to be disturbed il The least BY it,.
As soon as the jury was discharged the
attorneys made q MOTION for q new trial,
which was 20 be heard Yesterday
The jury retired at Lilo. II was tx
pected by most people in attendance at
the trial that a disagreement would be
the outcome, and much surprise was ex-
pressed at the final result. The Jury
made report at 8: 80 and at $50 filed
into the court room. The clerk called
the roll, and Matt. Lang, foreman, an
swered thatfEe jury had reached an
agreement. The clerk then read the
verdict which was, as charged in the IN
dictment Of the grand jury Of Nicollet
county, guilty Of murder in the first de-
gree. Judge CALDWELL, prior to the read
ing of the verdict, cautioned all to make
no demonstration, under penalty of being
brought before the court and, punished.
There is much room for belief that
this verdict IS the result Of popular pre-
JUDGE rather than the findings Of evil
!dence. Ia the minds, of most people,
and especially those who have known
anything of the murderof Wellner, the
Tankes have been tried and convicted
many times over and the lack Of evidence
would readily be supplied by prejudice.
z It is a popular verdict here and in the
neighborhood ofthe home f.the Tankes.
Those who have followed the case
from the time Of the cold blooded MUIR
der Of John Wellner and the marriage of
Frank sTanke to Mrs. WeIlner have not
.hesitated in believing that the two we're
parties if not principals IN the crime.
Attorney Davis in the prosecution Of
the case, has shown a. masterfrll legal
mind and one that will compare with
many lawyers who are celebrated in
criminal jurisprud ence The only cues
ton that can be raised againstsitis s.has
the right person been convicted?', Man
has no moral or legal rig htfo= destroy that
which he cannotfupon demand replace
and since the law Of the state gives, him
this right the exercise of the greatest
caution should be used in administering
it, and IN this case, with three years IN.
#tervening between the time of the MUIR
der and conviction Of Frank Tankes
tits possible that witnesses who would
scorn falsehood IN any capacity might
be mistaken n presenting what they call
sfacts s.
III Frank Tanke murdered Wellner,
then Mrs. Wellner, at the time, had.
knowledge Of it and from all appear.
$ances must have consented to the crime
aud together they arranged and success
fully carried outsone Of the most skill.
fully managed plots that has ever been.
sunearthed. To.so plan. to establish an
abb and to carry It out with 50 much
3exactness required d cunning mind.
shrewd beyond that which is accredited
to the pair, and in that sense the verdict
of the ury looks to- be. far fetched and
not in harmony with the testimony.
Since the jury has. been disc charged the
+
defense claims to, have found additional
evidence 50 conc usive that il proves be-
You'd d doubt the innocence of both
Frank and Mrs. Tan ke;; and pom this
no doubt, will be based the evidence for
"a neWstrial.
Court adj ourned on Saturday and did
not g convene again unit yesterday when
the attorneys for the defense were toI
make their rgument for q new trial and
the case, of the State against Mrs. Tankey
for ft murder u the first degree was 70 BE-
taken up.
e is said that Mrs. Tanke il read to
confess al. When inf ormed that her hus-
band had been found guilty she broke.