The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1915-04-01
.KOSCAK COMING TO KENOsHA
Attorney for Alleged Dynamiter in Ke-
nosha Wednesday Declares Order
Will be Issued Within a Few Days to
Release Him from State Prison.

pack from the state prison to be tried
again In Kenosha by an order Of the
supreme court, will probably not reach
Sot next week. His attorney was here
iron Milwaukee on Wednesday after
moon looking into the matter and it was
declared that just as soon as Koscak
was brought to Kenosha bail would be
offered for his release pending a new
trial Of the case. The attorney general
has announced that he will get the
papers for the return of Koscak out
just as soon as possible. The decision
an the Kocak case was written by
Judge Siebecker and it follows in full:
Siebecker j. BY section 4398a Estate
1919 it is enacted; Amy person who
shall make, manufacture, buy, sell, give
away, offer for sale or to give away,
transport or have in possession any
'troglycerine, giant, oriental or thun-
'erbolt powder, dynamite, ballistile
tulgarite, detonite or any other explo-
sive compound with intent that the
same shall be used in this state or any
where else for the injury or destruction
OF public or private property or the
assassination, murder, injury or de-
struction of any person or persons,
either within this state or elsewhere,
or knowing that such explosive com
pounds are intended to be used by any
other person or persons for any such
purpose, shall be punished by i'm
prisonment or fine. The context of this
statute clearly means that it is an Of
Tense for any person to make, manu-
facture, compound, buy, sell, give
away offer for sale or to give away,
transport or have in possession, any of
these explosive compounds, with in
tent that the same shall be used for
the forbidden purposes. 1t is manifest
from the words that if person having
the intent that the explosive compound
is to be used in the forbidden manner.
when he deals with it in any of the
ways specified in the statute, he is
guilty Of violating the statute and sub
Ject to punishment. If then the facts
and circumstances of this case tend to
show that the defendant dealt with
such an explosive compound in any of
the respects enumerated, having an in
tent that the same was to be used for
any of the forbidden purposes, then
he may be convicted and punished for
such act. The last part of the statute
in the words: cor knowing that such
explosive compounds are intended to
be used by any other person or persons
for any such purpose shall
be subject to punishment, defines an
pffense different in nature from the one
'rst defined. The language here used
hbraces the element of having
knowledge that another person in fact.
intends to use the explosive compound
for the forbidden purpose. It follows
that this offense can be committed
only when it is shown that the person
accused had knowledge that another
person in fact intended to use the ex-
plosive for the unlawful purpose. 1t is
therefore essential to constitute this
cffense that the fact appears that a
person other than the accused in fact
intended to use the dangerous com
pound for the unlawful purpose, and if
such fact of the intended unlawful use
of the explosive is not shown then the
offense defined in this part of the
statute is not established. 1t is ele-
mentary that every essential of the of.
Tense charged must be established to
constitute violation of the criminal
law. Applying the statute to the state
of the evidence before us, it appears
chat there is evidence tending to show
that the defendant on the day of his
arrest had purchased and transported
dynamite in and from Racine and had
it in his possession with the intent that
the same was to be used in Kenosha
for the injury of the property of De-
Cou. This purchase and transportation
Of the dynamite and having it in pos
session with the intent that it should
be so used for the forbidden purpose,
constituted an offense denounced by the
first part of the statute. If the jury
believed that he voluntarily committed
such an act they were warranted in
ending him guilty thereof. When we
come to consider the evidence bearing
on the charge in the information that
the defendant SO bought and transport
ed dynamite knowing that it was in
tended to be used by other persons for
the unlawful purposes, the proof fails
establish the offense 1t is of course
mitted that the detectives, Poppic
d Boitano, had no such intent or de-
4gn. They were the agents of DeCou
and Jeffery and were operating for
them to detect the defendant in the
commission of the alleged offense The
circuit court instructed the jury in diff
ferent parts of his charge to the effect
that the fact that the detective did
lot have any intent to use TIE dyna-
mite for an unlawful purpose was no
defense to the defendant. The court