Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1906-05-01
KOCH GIVEN
EIGHT YEARS
Result Leaves Him Just Where n.
Was When He Came Here For
His Second Trial.
JUDGE cHEADLE ON. GAMBLING
Case Of the Judith inland Transpor.
tation Company Against c. II.
Williams Now on Trial.

Harry kOck, who was convicted
last week of involuntary manslaughter
for killing Joseph Wander at Stanford
in Feb, 1904. appeared for sentence
for the second time In the district
court this morning. On the first trial.
when Kock was convicted of voluntary
manslaughter, he was sentenced to
10 years Imprisonment An appeal
was taken on the ground of errors in
in the charge of the court, and new
trial was granted. The only differ
ence in the finding of the two juries
was that the verdict returned last
week found the defendant guilty of
involuntary manslaughter. The Mont
ana statute however, while defining
the difference between the two de.
srees of manslaughter provides the
same penalty for each-from one to
10 years.
Just where He Started From.
Judge Cheadle simply allowed Koch
the benefit of the two years already
served by him, and sentenced him to
eight years in the pententiary. This
leaves Koch precisely where he was
when he came here from Deer Lodge
to stand trial for the second time.
In passing sentence, Judge Cheadle
reviewed the case at considerable
length, and his remarks were very in
teresting, His honor said in part;
Judge CheadIe's Remarks.
Koch, this case is a somewhat pc
culiar one. You have twice been tried
to juries of this county, and each jury
gave your case full and fair consider
alton. There are but two logical YER
diets possible in it, in the view of the
court. The jury could have found you
guilty of murder in the first degree,
and the evidence is ample to sustain
it, The only other possible verdict
would be voluntary manslaughter. II,
when you went to the hotel and got
your rifle and returned to Vander's
saloon, you had in your mind purpose
to Kill Seguin or any other person,
and with that purpose in your mind
you fired the shot that killed Wander.
you were guilty of murder in the first
degree. AS to that fact, you alone
know.
The Courts Views.
1T is my personal opinion that there
is reasonable doubt as to whether
you had such a purpose, and in the
verdict OF the jury. the court rests
fully satisfied. The jury acted con-
scientiously and with intelligence. You
must. at least. be guilty of involuntary
Two juries of this
county have passed on your crime. If
you are a man of heart and conscience,
any penalty an earthly tribunal may
lnfiict will be less than that inflicted
by your own conscience. The first
jury fixed the penalty at ten years,
and the court feels that this was a
Just sentence. Possibly some may feel
certain sympathy with you because
you were robbed of a small sum of
money by a gambler. The court does
not feel any such sympathy. The law
provides way by which you could
have recovered your money. When
you went into that game, you thought
you were betting on a sure thing, and
your greed was just as great as his.
A word About Gambling.
In passing, the court is inclined
to call the attention of the peace of.
hcers and of the county attorney to
the fact that it was through a VIC.
lation of the anti gambling law that
this homicide was committed. Such
violations appear to have been carried
on in portions of this state with ef
frontery. In this instance, one man
was killed and another is sent to the
and the county is put to
great expense, and all simply through
The desire of tin horn gambler to
get little money dishonesty. The |
court could, at this time, impose the
ull penalty of 10 years. but will not
10 so. You have already served near.
y two years and that will be allowed
IN this sentence"
Judge Cheadle then sentenced Koch
o eight years in the penitentiary.
An Important Civil Case.
The important civil case of the
Judith Inland Transportation company.
I. l.. Mears manager, against C. H.
Williams was then taken up, J. C.
iuntoon and E. G. Worden appearing
or the plaintiff, and H. l.. DeKalb
nd E. w. Mettler the defendant.
his action is brought to recover the
um OF $1,000 alleged to have been
aid in to the defendant as the agent
+ the plaintiff in 1901 and 1902. The
defendant denies the indebtedness and
as put In a counter claim for s 900
Which he claims is due him from the
efendant. The case is rather a com.
licated one. and the issue is being
tubbornly contested