The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1915-10-21
part to carry out the plot.


[ had a right to presume that the
case of Topolewsi VS.. State, decided
by our Supreme Court, correctly stated
the law and if so the fact that the de-
tectiyes acting as agents for Jeffrey or
DeCou against whom this crime was
planned, suggested, assisted or encour-
aged the commission of the offense or
set trap for the defendant, did not
operate as defense for the defendant
for the reason that he had done every
act essential to the completion Of the
offense.
I did not know whether the court
would. construe the word knowledge
as used in this statute as meaning
knowledge in fact or that it would
be sufficient if the defendant knew, so
far as he could know without know
ing The secret minds of the detectives,
of their purpose and was convinced in
his own mind as far as he could be
convinced Of such intended use of the
dynamite by them. However, it did
not seem to me very material which
construction should be adopted for the
reason that under the facts Of this
case the defendant could not be guilty
of the second feature of the statute
without being guilty Of the first. In
other words, even though he did not
have knowledge that the detectives in
fact intended to use the dynamite for
the unlawful purposes mentioned he
could not have done what he did with
out having the intent which would de-
termine his guilt under the first feat
ure of the statute.
The jury fully understood the two
features of the statute and the essen
tials necessary to a conviction under
each. / am also informed by the fore
man of the jury that they were agreed
that the defendant intended the dyna-
mite to be used for such unlawful
purposes.
The Supreme Court was of the
opinion that the jury under the instruc-
tions of the court, were confused as to
the two features of the statute. With
all due respect to the Supreme Court,
the statement of the foreman of the
jury indicates rather conclusively that
the jury were not so confused.
The dissenting opinion filed by JUS
tice Barnes of the Supreme Court,
states in direct and concise language
the theory upon which this prosecution
was based and reference is here made
to such opinion.
The case was remanded for new
trial and the question which now pre-
sents itself for determination is
whether the defendant shall be again
placed upon trial on this charge.
The purpose of the law is to punish
the guilty defendant and to deter him
and others from further violations of
the law. If this result has been ac-
complished then the requirements of
the ate and the public have been met.
The defendant was arrested August
Goth, 1913, and not furnishing bonds
for his appearance was confined in
county Jail until March 25th, 1914, and
was then confined in the state prison
at Waupun, Wisconsin, until he was
returned to the Kenosha county Jail
and from there discharged on bail on
the 10th day of April, 1915. He was
confined in all one year, seven months
and twelve days.
Since his release he has apparently
conducted himself in accordance with
the laws of the state. I feel that there
is slight probability of his again re-
sorting to such dangerous methods to
accomplish his ends. IF he were again
convicted by jury of this offense the
court might feel that he had been suf-
fciently punished.
I have not as yet examined the law
with reference to other alleged viola
tions Of the criminal statutes by the
defendant or arrived at any decision
as to whether it is my duty to com
mence such prosecutions and I am not
prepared at this time to make any
statement with reference thereto.
So far as this prosecution is concern
ed I feel that / have fulfilled my duty
to the state and the public.
therefore move the court, for the
reasons herein stated, that this action
be dismissed and the defendant be
discharged"