Dial 17I-.
be I&lattamoutb 5oi
irnsr
SEMI-WEEKLY EDITION EIGHT PAGES
VOLUME xxnn
PLATTSMOUTH. NEBRASKA, MONDAY, MA11CH S, 1909
NO. 187
OSSENKOP GETS
MANSLAUGHTER
tagie. was mere on me evening ot neighborhood where he lived. Wit-
September 16. Was in the saloon af- nes9 defined reDutation as what Deo-
ter the man who was knocked down.
Saw defendant. This was about 9:30.1
Defendant said "Stand back. I don't
care if you are loaded with stars and
clubs" and used vile language to-
ple said about one. Character is
w hat a man built up his acts. Wit
ness admitted the counsel for the
state had talked to him on the differ
ence. Witness had heard of defend-
Returns Verdict This Morning
After Much Deliberation
ward him. Knew defendant's rep- Bnt hitting other people but couldn't
NOTE-
-In connection with
reporting a case so extensive and
long continued as the Ossenkop
case and so much testimony pro
duced, errors necessarily creep
in. In this connection attention
is called to the testimony of J.
C. Mick. Mr. Mick is miule to
appear to say that he was stand
ing in front of the hardware
store at the time of the troblu
when it should have read "in
front of the saloon." The tes
timony of Henry Clear makes
him appear as saying he saw the
defendant kick the deceased,
when he said ho "did not see de
fendant kick the deceased."
The name of Mrs. Frances Stang
is given as Mrs. Frances Stahulo.
Mrs. Stang Is one of the principal
witnesses for the defense.
The trial of Fred Ossenkop wa3 re
ported in the Journal yesterday up
to the time when the defendant rest
ed and the state commenced its re
buttal testimony.
The state opened at 3 o'clock.
Dr. I. C. Munger called by the
state as the first witness in rebuttal
made an excellent medical
expert. His testimond served to dem
onstrate the strength of the state's
case from a medical standpoint. As
in the case of the expert witnesses for
the state, his testimony was largely
technical.
Mr. Gering on cross-examination
went into Dr. Munger's personal his
tory and reviewed his experience with
fractures. He developed that witness
had made research Into the subject
and had consulted authorities in var
' lous offices. Witness identified a let
ter in which he had agreed to come
down and see Mr. Gering and give
him the Bindings he' made by an in
spection of Byrnes' body. He re
ceived $25 for his inspection. He
also identified a report he had made
to Mr. Gering in which he stated he
believed the cause of death to be the
fracture at the base of the skull.
Witness was severely cross-examined
by Mr. Gering on the facts developed
at the post-mortem for which he was
employed by the county at an ex
pense of $50. Mr. Gering sought to
show that the witness had kept the
facts of that post mortem secret. His
testimony now was different in part
to that given on the former trial. The
general trend of the cross-examlna
tion was the same as that of other
medical witnesses.
Witness then explained that he
was called up by Henry Gering who
asked him to make an inspection of
the body. Witness objected as be
Ing unsatisfactory and suggested a
post mortem. This was not agreed
upon as Matthew Gering was absent.
Witness informed Henry Gering such
Ossenkop said "I don't know how it
happened. I saw him fall and when
got up there he was dead.
Cross- examined witness thought
the conversation was held about
11:30 at night in front of the under
takers' room. Did not know why
Ossenkop was there. Ora Shoats said
Some said it was Fred Ossenkop."
Knew defendant for 6 or 7
years. First told Frank Lannlng of
hearing the talk. Never met County
Attorney Ramsey until yesterday.
Witness first told Mr. Ramsey of the
conversation last night. He was an
honest, straightforward and conscien
tious witness.
John Adams called. Lumberman
at Eagle. Lived there 15 years.
Knew ussenKops reputation as a
peaceable, well disposed citizen and
it was bad.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gering wit
ness could not advance good reasons
for his statement of bad reputation
He cited one case of fighting in which
defendant was accused. Defendant
referred to intoxicating liquor and
drinking as his reason for thinking
defendant was not a peaceable and
law-abiding citizen.
Mr. Norrls called. Lived at Eagle
Knew defendant 5 or 6 years, a.id
knew his reputation as a peaceable,
law-abiding citizen was bad.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gering
witness testified he had been asked
by the County Attorney as to his rep
utation and it was bad. There was
a difference between characters.
Mr. Gering got after witness severely
on his lack of knowledge of defend
ant's reputation. Had seen defend
ant at dances and in saloons. Witness
drank some. .. ,
George Reitter called. Lived at
Eagle. Banker. Knew the reputa
tion of defendant as a peaceable, well-
disposed, law-abiding citizen and it
was bad.
Mr. Gering cross-examined witness
who ha heard people tayk of defend
ant's reputation. Had not loaned de
fendant money. Witness could see
no difference between character and
reputation..
Frank Clements called. Lived at
Eagle. Mercant. Knew defendant
and knew his reputation as a peace
able, well-disposed and law-abiding
citizen. It was bad.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gering
Had talked to some of his neighbors
utatton as a peaceable, well disposed
and law aiding citizen. It was bad.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gering.
Reputation was what people said.
Heard this when he was a kid. Had
not talked about reputation with' at
torneys. Witness was quite aggres
sive toward counsel.
Wm. Hobson called. Testified he
knew Ossenkop. Night of affray in a
conversation between witness and he
in Brinkworth's presence, he asked
Ed. who did it. Ed answered "I
don's know. I did not see it. I was
across the street." Knew the repu
tation of defendant as a peaceable,
well-disposed and law-abiding citizen
It was bad.
Mr. Gering cross-examined. Wit
ness did not know Just where defend
ant lived. He had been told he lived
west of Eagle. Had seen defendant
before September 16, but never
talked to him. Had heard of his be-
ing arrested at Eagle on September
16, but not before. Had heard talk
about his breaking the law before
September 16. Spoke, of his being
quarrelsome an dhavlng trouble at
dances. Had overheard such talk.
Witness had heard people speak of
trouble with defendant, naming sev
eral. Including Adams, Brown and
Oberle. Never bad heard of defend
ant being convicted. Reputation was
what the people thought of
a man. llaa not consulted eitner oi
counsel for state on this. Had not
told them about the conversation,
told them about reputation but not
about the conversation. Thought he
did this the last time he was here.
First met Ed. a little over a year ago.
Had never been at house of either,
Did not know what his neighbors
thought of him.
William Irey recalled stated he
was appointed marsnai oy iiuason
and sworn In. Did not know Byrnes
or if he was in the saloon at the time
of the trouble.
J. E. Brlnkworth, editor of the
Eagle Beacon, called and testified
Kriew Ed. Ossenkop. Was present at
the conversation between Hobson and
Ed. Ossenkop and corroborated
Hobson's testimony as to the conver
sation. He heard it as Hobson did.
Knew Fred Ossenkop and his reputa
tion as a peaceable, well disposed and
law-abiding citizen. It was bad
Cross-examined by Mr. Gering
Reputation was what people say of
a man. Had never heard of defend
ant being arrested. Witness had
never been arrested. Witness had
had an altercation with a son of
Druggist Brown of Elmwood and had
paid a fine of $20 for assaulting him
Had never heard of Ossenkop having
trouble since witness had been in
Eagle some nine or ten months.
recall "who. Defendant had traded
with him some.
Charles Venner called. Lived at
Eagle. Farmer. Saw George Van-
noy while the latter was shelling corn
for. him. Had talked with Vannoy,
who 8ald"I don't know adarnedthlng
about it" referring td the tragedy.
Jasper Eads called. Lived at Ea
gle. On Sept. 16th he graded the
street with a home made grader. He
graded the street at the scene of the
trouble in the morning, finishing be
tween 8:30 and 9:00 o'clock. Grad
ed up to the sidewalk and within n
foot and a half of the telephone polo
and up to the walk two feet from the
pole. There were no rocks,
bricks or bottles in the street.
Mr. Gering cross-examined the wit
ness and showed the angle at which
the grader stood.
The Jurors questioned the witness
closely regarding the grading. The
team hitched to the float was in the
moddle. The object was to smooth
the street for races. He came up to
the edge of the walk.
Mr. Gering then sought to shake
the witness' testimony and discredit
his statements as to getting to the
sidewalk. The witness, however, was
an excellent one and had a clear Idea
of what he said.
Nell Gardner called. Lived at
Eagle all his life. Was there on
September 16. Saw the body on the
sidewalk light in front of the first
pole of the porch to the south. Saw
Guy Clements on the ground striking
matches and looking on the ground
Witness was leaning agalnBt the
porch. Saw nothing In the Bhape of
rocks, etc., on the ground. He was
looking for evidence as to what did
the crime.
Guy Clements of Elmwood called.
Was in Eagle on September 16 and
was at the point where Byrnes was
killed. Looked over the ground to
see what he could discover. There
wpftt no rocks or bricks on the
ground.
Cross-examined. Son of Coroner
Clements. Knew H. W. Beaver but
no relative. Search made about
twenty mlnuteB after death.
Redirect. He helped lift the body
from the ground and knew where it
lay.
Ed Roberts called. Lived at Eagle.
Bartender for Chas. Trumblo. Was
the several witnesses for the defend
ant in clearing the defendant as they
were relatives. He referred to the
number of witnesses the state pro
duced who testified as to the defend
ant's assault on him, In the defend
ant's testimony.
The usual noon recess was taken
and w hen court reconvened there was
a very large crowd present. The
room later filled almost to suffoca
tion. While many women had been
of taking a drink. He cited the jury
to a long list of brilliant and able
men who drank. He sought to show
that the defendant's testimony was
correct and truthful and he vigor
ously denounced the efforts of the
prosecution to blacken the charac
ter and reputation of the defendant.
He reverted to the question of mo
tive and contended the death was
an accident from the fall. Who, he
asked, started the quarrel? He re
in the audience in the morning their viewed the testimony of those who
number was far greater In the after- claimed to have witnessed the start
noon. They came early seeklne to of the trouble and criticized the
i
secure the best points of vantaire
from which to hear the argument of
counsel. All those who had attend
ed the morning session were there
with a great many in addition.
County Attorney Ramsey resumed
his argument immediately upon court
opening. Mr. Ramsey pointed out
to the Jury his belief that Byrnes at
the time of his death was headed
for his team and home. He paid a
high tribute to the worth of witness
Henry Kettlehut ana reviewed his
testimony in detail. Touching upon
the testimony of the defendant he
sought to show by it that the state's
witnesses were correct, by showing
defendant and deceased could not
have grappled as defendant contend
ed as they would have gone off the
walk at a different point than they
nctually did. The defendant's tes
timony he contended, did not show
provocation for an assault upon de
ceased. He referred to the testimony
of Snoke and Wettenkamn as to
teams, and also paid their disinter
estedness a high compliment as also
their worth and standing. He se
verely criticized the theory of
Byrnes' head hitting the tongue or
neckyoke of the buggy, as being un
reasonable. The theory of the state
regarding the fall was expounded.
Mr. Ramsey then criticized the tes
timony of George Vannoy and his si
lence at to what he saw. Ho referred
to the disinterestedness of those wit
nesses who swore to the kicks of de
fendant to deceased. He dwelt upon
the fact of Byrnes being alive when
the affair started and dead when It
finished. Reviewing the medical
testimony he endeavored to demon
strate to the jury that the state's
theory of death was correct even on
tho state's own medical wit
nesses. The attorney reviewed In de
tail tho evidence established by the
post mortem and also sought to show
that Dr. Livingston's testimony dem
onstrated the state's theory' of death
by kicks and blows as correct.
Throughout his argument Mr. Ram
sey attacked the "reasonable doubt"
there afternoon and evening. Saw I theory of the defense, and In this con
defendant In saloon that evening
about 9:30.
Defendant said he would kill me
or any otner u i) s
inspection was unsatisfactory. His
only opportunity for a post mortem fen(Jant an(1 reputatIon tt8 a peace
able, well-disposed and law-abiding
about him. He had been in the res
taurant business when witness came Witness came from Beatrice and Gage
In and mixed up the pickles, sugar counties. Knew Ed Ossenkop by
peppersauce, etc. He also swore and
cussed. Defined general talk about
him as bad. Heard of defendant be
Ing in Jail in Greenwood about a year
ago. Witness bad never been arrest
ed.
Conrad Wettenkamp called. Lived
at Eagle. Retired farmer. Knew de
came when the county hired him.
Henry Clear recalled. Tea-
testified he knew Albert Stang and
was slightly acquainted with his
wife. Saw them at the time of the
affray where Byrnes was lying and
heard her say to her husband "You
have got no business in there" and
taking him by the coat and pulling
him away. She was south of Byrnes'
body and that Ossenkop was on the
east side of Byrnes' body. Before
this witness saw Ossenkop on top
or Byrnes striking him. No cross-
examination.
M. W. Spahnle called was proprle
tor of the hardware store at Eagle
Knew William Ossenkop and saw him
at the time of Byrnes' death. Wit
ness assisted Mrs. Ossenkop In hold
ing William Ossenkop to prevent him
Joining his brother In the fight. His
store was lighted by a 500 c. p. gaso
line lump in the center of tho store
Knew Fred Ossenkop some 17 or 18
years. Did not know his reputation
prior to September 16 as a penceuble,
law abiding It lion.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gering.
There were two lights In his store
but only one burning.
In answer to Juror Wescott witness
stnted tho light was some 18 or 20
feet back from the front of the store
Ben Root called. Lived at Eagle
for twenty years. Knew defendant
and saw him on the night of Septem
ber 16 when Byrnes was killed. He
heard a conversation In which Fred
sight, was a subscriber to the paper.
Had met him once. At that time he
did not know Will from Ed.
Juror Whiteman wanted to fix the
time of the conversation. He fixed it
about 11 p. m.
James H. Latrom called. Merchant
at Eaglo Knew defendant slightly.
Knew his reputation for being a
peaceable, well-disposed and law-
of bartender who tried to stop
the fight."
Cross-examined. Witness Bworo
he had shut off men from drinking.
Liquor was being passed to them
The fight was between the hired men
of Charles Spaan and Albert Stang.
The state rested.
Mr. Gering asked that the Jury bo
Instructed before argument.
The state rested at 10:50. An ad
lournment of several minutes was
had prior to the commence of the ar
gument.
County Attorney Ramsey opened
nectlon explained how tho state had
disproved tho theory of rocks, bricks,
etc., on the scene of the tragedy by
the testimony of two witnesses who
examined the ground immediately af
ter the trouble. Mr. Ramsey referred
to the alleged conversation had
wherein defendant denied knowing
who did the deed and pointed out the
lack of Interest In the case of the wit
nesses who testified to this conver
sation. He also reviewed the tes
timony of the brothers and their al
leged conversations and Hpoke of
the honest disinterestedness of the
witnesses who testified to theso facts.
Mr. Ramsey closed at 2:30 after
having spoken 2 hours. Ills argu
ment was clear, connected and lucid
and a fair and dispassionate review of
state's witnesses. Mr. Gering made
an extended argument to prove the
defendant acted in selfe-defense.
Mr. Gering made much of the
scratch upon defendant's neck and
cited the testimony of tho several
witnesses who Baw the scratch. He
again called the jury's attention to
their oaths and their duty to acquit
if they had doubt as to who started
the fight. Ho paid a very high tri
bute to Mrs. Frances Stanij and her
manifest truthfulness. To demon
strate the length of time a fight of
one minute would take Mr. Gering
ceased talking for that length of
time, lie defended George. Vannoy
whom he had cautioned not to talk
about what he knew .
Mr. Gering quoted from the testi
mony of Mrs. Giebenrath to corrobo
rate the defendant's story of the
commencement of the trouble. He
reverted once more to tho question
of motive. Reviewing the testimony
In the case so far as the clinching and
struggle with tho accompanying fall,
came to the conclusion that when
Byrnes fell under tho defendant he
was a dead mnn. Mr. Gering attack
ed tho testimony of Harrison Hudson
and bitterly scored him. He referred
to the kicks and contended that no
abrasion of tho skin meant no kicks
given by the defendant. He also con
tended that Dr. Munger corroborat
ed this. He quoted from Dr. Mun
ger's testimony to show he had testi
fied two ways In the case one way
before the post mortem and another
afterwards. He attacked County At
torney Ramsey for not acquainting
the defendant with, tho results of the
post mortem. He criticized Dr. Mun
ger for having taken employment on
both sides of the case. Mr. Gering
made many sarcastic references t
Dr. Munger and his limited experi
ence as a practicloner. He compared
his testimony with that of Dr. Liv
ingston and Dr. Cummins.
Reverting once more to the testi
mony of Frances Stang. he paid her
fidelity to her neighbors and flrends
an eloquent tribute. Throughout his
entire argument he contended strong
ly for the theory of accidental death
and ho warned tho Jury of a possible
mistake In their verdict, lie spoke
of his deep sympathy for the widow
of Byrnes but he wanted no widow
made by sending Ossenkop to the
penitentiary, lie made a very elo
quent argument for the acquittal
of the defendant, lie spoke for one
hour.
citizen and it was bad. Witness was
like the others and could not dis
tlngulsh between reputation and
character. He was in Eagle on Sep
tember 16. Witness saw the street
and the teams tied In front of the sev
eral stores. He saw a team tied In
front of Clement's store. Did not
see one tied in front of Dr. Dell's of
fice.
Mr. Gerlng's cross-examination of
this witness was caustic and severe,
He brought out that this witness like
others had objected to defendant be
cause he drank some. Mr. Gering on-
deavored to show by the witness that
abiding citizen. It was bad in the the argument by referring to the need the testimony and evidence adduced
town. He could not say as to his
neighborhood. Stricken out as not
re-punnlvo. Question repeated An
objection by Mr. Gering as to witness
not being able to show reputation In
his Immediate neighborhood. The
objection was sustained. Attorney
Doyle explained that he meant by
community that Intercourse of busi
ness Interests between city and coun
try as Including the community.
Witness stated he did not know as to
tho country and this lino was aban
doned.
Henry Snoke called. Witness
witness' son had knocked his mother- showed photograph of teams on the
In-law down and had been arrested
for this but Judge Travis ruled this
out. His cross-examination was very
caustic and bitter and lend to sev
eral clashes with counsel.
Friday Morning.
Lured by the prospects of sn early
dosing of the trial of Fred Ossenkop,
there was a large crowd on hand this
morning when court convened as has
been the case for the past several
days, women were conspicuous In
the multitude. It was the general
belief that the counsel would reach
the arguments not Inter than 11
o'clock In the morning. Court was
late In opening It being half past
nine before they were ready to pro
ceed.
William Irey called as the first wit
ness for the state, testified he lived In
street at the time of the trouble. He
denied that photographs correctly
stated the position of the teams. Mr.
Gering fought this vigorously.
Witness knew the reputation of
the defendant around Eagle as to be
Ing a peaceable, well-disposed, law-
abiding citizen. He knew the boys
some sixteen years, but did not know
them apart. Saw them In town fre
quently. Had heard they attended
dances. Nothing could be shown by
this witness hh to reputation, he not
qualifying.
J. C. Brown next called. IJved at
Eagle since 1902, druggist. Knew
Ossenkop by sight. Knew his repu
tation in the community as defined
by Mr. Doyle to be bad.
Cross-examined by Mr Gering
Did not know his reputation In the
of more enforcement of luw, and the
duty the Jurors owed to the state
to see that law was enforced. He
referred to the safeguards and pro
tection given the defendant by tho
laws. He spoke of the duty owing
to the defendant of a fair and Impar
tial trial. This duty he owed as
well as other officers. He took up
the reasonable doubt proposition and
referred to the possible abuse of this
In the case. He defined reasonable
doubt as he understood It and out
lined his Ideas as to what the jury
should find on this. Referring to
the case at bar Mr. Ramsey reviewed
the charge against the defendant and
dwelt particularly upon tho fact of
malice, defining tho latter. The ques
Hon of Intent entered Into tho case
and Mr. Ramsey dwelt upon the spe
dflc acts of defendant as showing
the Intent. Referring to manslaugh
ter, the County Attorney defined It
as It would be covered by tho in
structions of the court. Under the In
structions, the duty devolved upon
the Jury to determine the degree of
the crime.
He then took up the evidence and
reviewed It at some length referring
to proof of Byrnes' death, at Eagle,
and tho subsequent proceedings up to
the time ot his Interment. He then
advanced his views of the testimony
as to the defendant's guilt of the kill-
in the case.
Mr. Gering for the defendant did
not believe the Jury would find much
In tho case as tho county attorney
had seemed to. He paid a high com
pliment to the duty of Jurymen and
cautioned the Jury as to their oaths.
He entered at once upon tho reason
able doubt theory and asked fair and
Impartial treatment. Referred to the
several murders in the county In the
past five months. Attacked the pros
ecution for taking four different
tacks to securo conviction. The mo
tive for tho crime was taken up and
counsel then read an Instruction of
the court upon motive. Spoke of the
friendly relations between the part
ies nnd scored the character of the
testimony Introduced to secure con
viction. With these relations there
could be no motive for the crime.
Thought the law suit between Ossen
kop's father and the deceased had
nothing to do with the case. Was not
asking sympathy but referred to the
Ignominy of a prison term. Mr.
Gering then took up the testimony.
He referred to tearing down the tes
timony of witnesses and objected to
such a method of securing a reputa
tion. He referred to the character
of those witnesses who testified to
defendant's good character. Mr.
Oerlng referred to the drinking hab
its of the defendant and made a
Ing and he referred to the Interest of brilliant defense of his German habit
From Saturday' Pally.
Following Mr. Gering yesterday af
ternoon, Attorney T. J. Doyle
closed the argument on behalf of the
state. He pointed out to the jury
tho difference between motive and
Intent and then launched out on re
view of the evidence. He reviewed
very specifically the actions of Byrnes
on the Ill-fated day when he came to
his death. It was a direful and well-
connected story, lie made an elo
quent picture of the home life of the
deceased and spoke of the inevitable
price sin exacted. lie warned the
Jury against the feelings of sympathy
and ullowing It to Interfere with their
duty. Taking up the circumstances
of the day of the tragedy he reviewed
the events and lend up to the scene in
the saloon, making particular stress
upon tho trouble with the bartender.
He reviewed Ossenkop's actions Just
prior to the fight and the immediate
proceedings of tho fight. He reviewed
the testimony of George Vannoy, Mrs.
Spang and Miss Schroeder and re
ferred sarldonlcnlly to Mrs. Stang as
tho "lady who never moved." He
criticized the testimony of Ed. Ossen-'
kop where It referred to the con
versation with Mr. Luther. The sev
eral alleged conversations which Ed.
and Freil were reported to have
had nt the time of the trouble und he
l:tld particular mi ess en the language
they used. Taking up the scratch on
fendant'a neck he didn't know how
It got there nor did tho defendant.
Under all the clrcunistunces he was
not surprised nor would he have
been had there been scratches all
over his body. Ho made a powerful
and well connected argument on the
testimony all with the Intention of
showing the defendant was responsi
ble for the death of deceased and
(Continued on I'age 4.)
