Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-03-21

+. 5 4
and decisive "A sting OF people VINO
had heard the fast travelling rumor
that the juryshad agreed. was stretched
from the couct room door to the street.
400 feet distant That so many were
on hand to heaE>the final act showed
the widespread and intense interest
felt in the cassel and IN IFS outcome.
Great wonder had been expressed that
she Jury had renA a,nad out so long and
curiosity was ir,td,rse - learn what had
caused them to t,a On long in agree
ing II was not be},;sy.ad by anyone that
the jury could 3iisagIee or that IL
could acqu.t Naturally thsh' Do '1e
hours heightened and 10 word came
from the iury rootr me public won-
der grew Crowdsl gathered IN the
street across from the cotirt mouse ana
watched for hours, Sate iliio the night,
for some sign of Lille or 1hdlcation OF
what was going on IN thu Jury ROOM
the window Of which waj vice OPP II.
In the office of the United states ols-
trict clerk directly be,orV the jury
room a group OF newspaper men anu
court officials sat ana listeHsa Io' the
shuffling of, feet overhead VI we near
general movement W can knoW tney
have agreed" said an i ssociateu PresS
man, whose duty it Was To sehd the
result Of the trial f1asfarg over many
wires to thousands off, citiesl ana I"
hundreds Of thousands d people.
Disagree as to Goddard.
The jury reported that 1t wa1 unable
to agree as to the guilt OF onel Oh tifS
defendants, r. E. L. Goddard, pf Dali
las. Tex, charged with havingt taNen
part in the swindling OF DIR. j n. Tit
r. he yxfn
to be done with his case He is ftill
defendant in the federal case pehding
in Omaha, and can be tried thefe 1t
is anticipated, however, that otherS dis
position will be made of his cas-. VINE
instructions Of the court in respecd TO
Goddard may have had some influeace-
in causing them to be undecided asSao
his fate The court referred 10 his cfise
specifically and remarked in his Prltl
ed instructions, that the witness, TIT
tering, was apparently in "chaotiF
frame of mind when on the wltnefs
stand, and could not state whether t1e
incident was in 1904, 1905 or 1906. Th\e
court instructed the jury that 1T musV
determine whether the swindle was at
ter Sept 49, 1906, before it could con-(
vict Goddard With the witnesA uncer-t
tain and the court unwilling to decide
for it, the jury was no doubt greatly
puzzled. The determination, however,
in the face of this confictina testi-
mony, of a great majority of the jury
to convict Goddard shows, perhaps,
how much Of a chance the otheFs, had /
of escaping conviction. 1t is an ihdica-
ton that there was never the slightest
doubt of the fate Of the others i'm the
minds of the jury. In fact it is ,quite
generally understood that had thel jury
been able to agree as to Goddard a
verdict would have been agreed upon
early in the evening. No one on the
outside, not even excepting such of the
attorneys for the accused men as
jury would be out later than 10 ort II
o'clock.
Case a Memorable One.
The case is memorable one in many
respects At the outset the fedeTal
could account for an alg-
gregate Of about $1,0O0,ooO which it was
claimed had been taken from the pocFs-
cts of victims of the gang, and frorn
day to day this sum was swelled, unity.
at the close the government knew OF
$500 900 additional which had to bf
added to the swindles and the word OF
a competent government witness, FL
Simpson, of spokane;e ts taken for the,
statement that even this sum is short
and that the total will aggregate So \
900 900.
For over two years federal officers \
have been working on the case. 1t was
first taken up by Postoffice Inspector
]. S. Swensen, Of Council Bluffs, who
soon found that the job was of such
that he had to have assist