Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The Plattsmouth journal. (Plattsmouth, Nebraska) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (March 8, 1909)
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.)