Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1914-01-21
REvERsAL ~ suPREME COURT
LEAVES LEGAL CONTROVERSY
UP IN THE AIR.
VERDICT or JURY HELD
TO De INCONSISTENT
High Court Says Verdict Of Guilty of
m ansIaushtsr While insane Conflict
uncertain What Disposition Lower
Court Will Maks-Rstriai Under Cir.
cumstaness Net Believed Probable.

Harry D. Kelly are about as greatly
puzzled over the supreme court deci-
sion in the Kelly case as was the trial
judge over the contradictory verdict Of
the jury in the case. The decision Is
almost as strange as the verdict.
It Is understood that DR.. Kelly will
be brought back here at once from An
amosa for further disposal as the dis
trict court may direct. He had re-
NAMED at the reformatory pending the
appeal, because there is another case
pending against him and because he
and his relatives realized it was per-
haps best for him that he remain out
Of the way Of temptation. 1t is said
that he fully realized that the reforma-
tory was a pretty good place to aid in
permanent cure of the dope habit.
Effect on Woolman Case.
DR.. Kelly was convicted Of killing
Edmund Sterzing. barkeeper. The jury
found him insane at the time. That
was the sole question at issue. The
act of killing was never denied. The
verdict of insanity stands as final. Now
he is also indicted for killing Deputy
Sheriff Woolman, probably on the same
day. II he was insane when he killed
Sterling he was also insane when he
killed Woolman. How can a Jury now
find that he was not insane on that day.
hence responsible for his act? In view
Of the expense Of the trial. which lasted
ten days or more and involved bring
ing great many witnesses from Coun-
Gil Bluffs and Omaha, 1t Is regarded as
doubtful If the authorities here will in
sist on retrial Of the first case de-
cided or an effort to convict or on the
second Indictment.
The decision In the case was written
by Justice Gaynor and was in sub
stance that in view of the language
used in the special interrogatory as to
Kelly's insanity at the time OF the
homicide, and in view Of the conflict
between the answer and the general
verdict, the idea that was in the minds
of the jurymen could not be ascer-
tanned and therefore that the doubt
should be resolved in favor of the de-
fendant. But Justice Preston took the
view that the Jury might have had it
in mind that altho Kelly was insane on
that day still he ought to be held re-
sponsible. That is. in fact. Just what
the jury wanted to do. and tried to
do.
In any second trial Of the case the
verdict or special finding Of insanity
would necessarily cut a large figure in
the case. The insanity which the de-
tense sought to prove, and which the
jury decided existed, was not merely
that the defendant was crazy drunk"
or the immediate victim of "dope" but
that he in fact and had been for some
time and was afterwards completely
mentally irresponsible, occasioned by
long continued use of liquor and
opium.
Jury's Confusing Verdict.
The court says in part:
1.-THE defendant was indicted on the
charge Of murder in the first degree In
the killing of one Edward Sterling on
March 25, 1911. The defendant having
entered a plea Of not guilty. the cause
was tried and submitted to q jury, and
the Jury returned a verdict finding the
defendant guilty of granddaughter.
1.-THE defendant interposed as de-
tense that at the time Of the killing of
Edward Sterling he was insane; that
such insanity was superinduced by the
long and continued use Of intoxicating
liquors, drugs and narcotics.
There was no claim made by the
defendant that he did not shoot and kill
Edward STERLING and this element OF
the charge in the indictment was not
controverted, but was conclusively es-
tablished by the evidence.
"The court submitted, with its in
structions. the following special inter-
rogatory: DO you find that the de-
PENDANT, n. D. Kelly, was insane on
the 25th day Of March, 1911. when 1t
is charged that he shot and killed Ed
ward Sterzing?' The jury answered.
Yes
upon the return Of the verdict the
defendant moved for q judgment on the
special finding. Notwithstanding the
general verdict. This motion was over
ruled and judgment pronounced on the
general verdict.
There is no room for even a sug-
gestion, such as is made by the counsel
for the state, shat the jury in deter
mining the guilt or the innocence Of
the defendant we're not limited to the
25th day of March. 1911, but could have
found the crime was committed at any
date within the statutory period" It
Is urged that the charge in the indict-