The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1925-11-26

(Contlnued from page ID
came to the district attorneys Office
and threatened to kill the man whom
his daughter had named, unless action
was taken at once. Beckman was duly
charged, arrested and brought into
court. He pleaded not guilty and af-
ter a preliminary hearing the case
went duly to trial.
Was Found Not Guilty.
There were several days Of testi-
mony in court, and finally the jury re-
turned verdict of not guilty. Nor
ris Barnett, who was then district at
torney, Immediately caused the rear
rest on the defendant on new charges.
The case has been pending month
in and month out for over year and
half. The defense presented plea
in bar, which had to be argued and
decided before Beckman could again
be tried. The position of the defend
ant in presenting the plea in bar was
that having been put in jeopardy for
the same offense once, he could not,
under the law, be so placed second
time. Beckman's attorney held that
the jury in the first case acquitted the
defendant of having had relation with
The girl complainant on the dates she
had named, and there were no other
dates to consider, and that no new
jury could come in and return YER
dict holding that he had had such re-
lation on those dates.
Judge Slater in his decision found
that Beckman had been in jeopardy,
quoting the decision in the case of the
state VS.. Jacobsen, among others which
reads as follows: "The question as to
what is the proper test for determining
whether there has been former jeop-
ardy is one which is frequently be-
fore the courts. The rule now gener-
ally recognized is that, in order that
former jeopardy may be available, it
must appear that the two offenses are
in substance the same or of the same
nature, or same species, SO that the
evidence which proves the one would
prove the other"
In concluding his decision Judge
! Slater said: "The verdict of the jury
has left this poor unfortunate girl In
a very pitiable condition. She has
given birth to an illegitimate child.
She has repeatedly testified that de-
| PENDANT had relation with her on two
specific dates, and at no other times.
The jury found by their verdict that
defendant did not have relation with
| her on either of said dates. She says
that no one but defendant ever had a
relation to her. There has been q
Rrievous mistake somewhere. We may
feel that the jury were wrong, but JUS
tice miscarried, possibly it did; but
though we may be fully convinced that
there was a miscarriage of justice we
are powerless to remedy the injus-
tice, if injustice has been done, and
as we understand the law, 1t is our
duty to sustain the defendants plea
in bar. We fully appreciate the pitt
able condition in which the decision
of the jury and jury verdict leaves
this unfortunate girl, and it is i'm
portant to her, also to the defendant
and to the people, that our decision
i be correct. The legislature has wisely
made provision for a review of such
decisions by our supreme court by a
very simple procedure on the part of
the state and with comparatively small
! expense, and in justice to this poor
unfortunate girl we feel that the mat
ter should be submitted for a decision
of the supreme court"