USA > Iowa > Jackson County > History of Jackson County, Iowa; Volume I > Part 39
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100
274
HISTORY QF. JACKSON COUNTY
time a number of persons came up, and they were separated. I should think Keithley weighed about one hundred and seventy-five, and Town about one hundred and fifty-five pounds. I had a conversation with Town the day before the shooting, in which he said he had trouble with the Keithley's; said that Jack Keithley and Frank Harrison met him in front of Weck's hotel, and that Mose Bean, the marshal, came up and took him into the hotel just as they were going to pitch onto him, and he said, "If they pitch onto me, I will shoot one of them," and showed his revolver.
Reuben Brown testifies: Was present at an altercation between Charles Town and Thomas Keithley on March 23, 1881 ; heard Keithley tell Town that he would whip him ; Town said, "Keep away, I do not want anything to do with you ;" Keithley said, "You have insulted my sister and I will whip you," and then struck him and pulled him onto the sidewalk; very soon the first shot was fired, which struck in the head; they continued scuffling and Town to shoot until the fourth shot was fired. I told Mr. Kemp he had better part them, and he did so. Not a word was said all the time they were scuffling.
Peter Butler, Jr., sworn : I am a constable in Bellevue ; arrested Mr. Town Wednesday evening, March 23d; he surrendered to me, saying, "Take me away ;" I said, "Charley, you have killed that man," and he replied, "I had to do it ; I could not help it." Mr. Kemp took the revolver away from him just before I arrested him, four of the chambers being empty and one still loaded ; it was a Smith & Wesson thirty-two caliber. On our way to the jail the old gen- tleman said, "Hold on, I want to kill that fellow ;" we stopped and the marshal replied, "John, you go back, we will take care of this boy." During the time that I had him in charge he made the remark that he was in hopes that Keithley would not die. John Kucheman testifies to being present when the shooting took place. His testimony is in substance the same as Mr. Butler's.
James Hollister, sworn: Am a physician, and attended Thos. Keithley, who was said to have been shot by Charles Town ; he was brought to my office im- mediately after being shot. The shot that was probably the cause of his death, was the one in the lower part of his bowels; that is the chief cause. Town's reputation is somewhat hard, especially when intoxicated. The reputation of both parties is said to be bad.
Ben F. Stukey testifies: I had a talk with Jack Keithley, brother of Thomas, and Frank Harrison on Tuesday morning, March 22d, and Jack said that Ames, the landlord of the Bower House, had fired. Town out; he further said they were waiting for Town on Kucheman's corner Monday night, but the marshal was with him, and had hard work to keep them away from Town, but they would catch him sometime. Keithley's reputation was bad. Town was noisy when not sober ; do not consider him a dangerous man when drunk ; never heard of Town insulting any ladies only that time; know nothing of Miss Keithley's reputation ; Town seemed to try to evade the Keithleys and keep out of the way ; never knew of Town carrying a revolver.
Frank Hanske, sworn: Was at the Bower House Sunday evening, March 20th ; saw Town there ; think he was drunk; went home and on the way saw Jack Keithley and Frank Harrison. After I got home I saw the landlord of the Bower House shoving Town out of the door ; then Mr. Bean, the marshal, took him away. On the morning of the shooting, and after it had occurred, saw old man Keithley ; I asked what the fight was about ; he said Town had insulted his daughter.
M. M. Bean, sworn: Am marshal of Bellevue ; am acquainted with Charles Town, also with Thos. Keithley. On Sunday evening was at the Bower House, on March 20th, and saw Town there, drunk, and the landlord put him out; I told him he must go to his boarding place or I would have to lock him up. We started out at Kucheman's corner, saw Jack Keithley and Frank Harrison. Keithley said to Town he was going to give it to him in the neck for insulting his sister. I said to them I would lock them all up if they raised any disturb-
275
HISTORY OF JACKSON COUNTY
ance, and I then took Town to his boarding house. Don't know whether Town was in the act of carrying a revolver or not.
F. E. Hallaway, sworn : On Sunday evening previous to the shooting, was walking down town with Charles Town ; we met a lady ; Town stepped in front of her and immediately stepped aside and let her pass; after going a few steps she said, "You dirty puppy, you will get your mouth slapped for this."
The case came up for trial at the June term in 1881, term of the District Court, and was continued from term to term until the March, 1883, term, when we find the following entry on the criminal docket: "Trial to court ; judgment guilty." Sentence was deferred from term to term until March, 1885, when the case was stricken from the docket with leave to reinstate. That was the end of the case so far as Jackson court was concerned.
KILLING OF HI HOOVER BY WESTON.
On the night of December 30, 1893, at Harmony Park, outside of the cor- porate limits of the city of Bellevue, Iowa, at which park a dance was in prog- ress, Henry Weston, city marshal of Bellevue, shot and killed one Hi Hoover. Weston was indicted by the grand jury of Jackson county and after a long and hard contested trial in the District Court, presided over by Judge Brannan, at which Weston was prosecuted by Levi Keck, county attorney, assisted by Hon. G. L. Johnson, and was defended by Eli Cole, of Bellevue, and D. A. Wyn- koop, of Maquoketa, defendant was found guilty of manslaughter and sen- tenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for eighteen months, from which he appealed.
As the decision of the Supreme Court in reviewing the case is quite a full and concise history of the case, we give the opinion as handed down by Judge Rothrock, chief justice.
STATE OF IOWA VS. HENRY WESTON, APPELLANT.
Instructions : Harmless error .- A refusal to instruct, on a prosecution for murder, against a city peace officer for killing a man in attempting to arrest him while quelling a disturbance at a dance hall just outside the city limits, that the accused had the right to exercise the duties of his office outside the corporation limits, even if erroneous, is cured by giving an instruction to the effect that ac- cused or any other person, might have lawfully arrested the deceased and taken him into custody if he was engaged in a breach of peace.
Appeal from Jackson District Court. Hon. William F. Brannan, Judge. Tuesday, May 12, 1896.
The defendant was indicted for murder in the first degree. He was convicted ' of manslaughter, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for eighteen months, and he appeals. Affirmed. D. A. Wynkoop and Eli Cole, Jr., for ap- pellant. Milton Remley, attorney general, and Levi Keck, county attorney, for the state.
Rothrock, C. J .- I. Counsel for appellee filed a motion to strike the evidence from the record, upon the ground that it was not preserved by a bill of exception within the proper time. The motion is overruled. There is doubt in our minds whether the motion is well taken, and as this is a criminal case, and the sustain- ing of the motion would not affect the result or conclusion, we have reached on the merits of the case, it is better that this disposition be made of the motion.
II. There is much complaint made by counsel for the defendant in refer- ence to alleged misconduct of counsel for the state, in the course of the trial in the district court. This consists of improper remarks made in argument to the jury, and in alleged professional statements made by one of the counsel during his address to the jury. We have examined these objections. They are pre- sented in such a way that it is very difficult to determine what the objections
276
. HISTORY OF JACKSON COUNTY
relate. Some of the alleged objectionable language was not properly made of record; and, even if it were, we do not think it would require us to reverse the judgment for the misconduct of counsel. We have disposed of this question in this general way, because it would require many pages of an opinion to set out, discuss, and dispose of all the points made by counsel on this feature of the case. The proper disposition of the matter demands no elaborate consideration. The mere reading of the record discloses without question, that the defendant was fairly tried, so far as the acts and conduct of the prosecuting attorneys were in- volved.
III. The indictment was for the murder of one Hiram Hoover. It is con- ceded that Hoover was killed, and that he came to his death by being shot by the defendant with a revolver. It is not claimed, in behalf of the defendant, that the fatal shot was accidental. The revolver was discharged by the defendant at the deceased, purposely and intentionally. The defence relied upon is twofold : (I) That the killing was excusable, as being in self defense; and (2) that the defendant was a peace officer, and, while engaged in arresting the deceased for a breach of the peace, he was opposed by such resistance, that it was necessary for the defendant to kill or disable the deceased by the use of the revolver. The appeal is presented to us upon an immense record. The killing occurred at a ball, or dance, and many of those present were examined as witnesses, so that the record shows that the taxable costs amounted to more than one thousand four hundred dollars. The manner in which the case is presented in this court has made it necessary to examine and scrutinize the evidence very closely. In the opening statement of the argument in behalf of the appellant, facts are stated which we do not find in the record, and the affray which led up to the homicide is described apparently without much regard to the testimony of the witnesses. As an example, in statement of facts it is said deceased was in the act of striking defendant when defendant drew his revolver, "and ducked his head" to avoid the blow aimed at him, and fired the shot. This is stated as though it was an established fact in the case. An examination of the record shows there was a very decided preponderance of evidence that the defendant shot the deceasd in the back, when he was six or seven feet away from him. We merely mention this is an instance of the extravagant claims made in behalf of the defendant. We will now proceed to state the actual facts in the case as shown by the testimony of the witnesses. It appears that there is a place in the suburbs of the city of Bellevue called "Harmony Park," which is owned by a number of citizens of Bellevue, and it is used as a pleasure resort. There is a building in which there is a dance hall, a ticket office, music stand, and a bar room. There was a ball appointed for that place on the night of December 30, 1893. It does not op- pear that invitations were issued, nor that the dance was expected to be a select gathering. So far as is shown, it was free for all. The crowd collected, and the dance proceeded, and the bar was in full operation, doing a business which ap- peared to be satisfactory to the proprietors and the customers. Indeed, the evi- dence tends to show that the bar was well patronized. The defendant was city marshal of Bellevue. Harmony Park was outside the corporate limits of the city, but the defendant attended the dance for the purpose of keeping order, and at the Harmony Park dance he was armed with a revolver, and he carried what is known as a "policeman's billy." Another man named Evans was present, who was sworn in as special policeman, to aid in maintaining peace and order. The deceased was a common laborer. His usual occupation was running on the river, as a raftsman in summer, and chopping wood in winter. He was married but for some time before the Harmony park ball lived separate from his wife. He lived in Bellevue and attended the dance on the night of December 30, 1893. The deceased appeared at the ball rather late that night. The dance had com- menced some time before he had arrived. There is some conflict in the evidence as to his condition when he put in an appearance. It is quite evident however that he was intoxicated, and that he continued in that state after he went there.
277
HISTORY OF JACKSON COUNTY
He pushed in past the ticket seller, and did not pay for his admission. He took off his coat, and rolled up his shirt sleeves, and staggered around among the peo- ple. After a time he put on his coat. While his wife was on the floor dancing, he approached her and put his hand on her shoulder, and turned her around. He did not injure her, and it does not appear that she made any complaint of his treatment of her; but his conduct was an annoyance to the dancers, and others present. The defendant and the special policeman (Evans) interfered, and de- manded that Hoover should keep quiet, and not disturb the ball. A personal collision occurred between the officer and Hoover. It does not appear that de- ceased struck either of the officers, but he resisted them, and it is probably fair to say that he attempted to strike the defendant, but he did not succeed in doing so. However, we do not regard that as material. The defendant knocked Hoover down with his billy, and the evidence tends to show that he and Evans had Hoover down on the dance floor more than once. After getting on his feet, the parties passed through the door leading to the bar room, and about that time the deceased pulled the billy from the defendant's hands. They all crowded through into the bar room, and Hoover was again thrown on the floor. He raised up, and about that time the fatal shot was fired. The ball from the revolver entered Hoover's body just below the left shoulderblade, and pierced his heart, and he died instantly. These are the general, and we may say undis- puted facts attending the tragedy. It is true that an ingenious argument is ad- vanced by defendant's counsel in support of the claim that Hoover was in the act of striking the defendant when he was shot. This contention is founded upon the course of the ball after it entered the body of the deceased. But, how- ever plausible the theory may be, it can not overcome the well established phys- ical fact that the shot was fired from the back of the deceased, and some distance from him, and at a time when he was making no resistance; and, indeed, the jury were fully warranted in finding from the evidence, that the defendant fol- lowed out into the bar room and shot the deceased after he said that he would quit the disturbance, and that, when the revolver was in sight, and was drawn up to shoot, a bystander tried to take it from defendant and thus prevent him from shooting the deceased. It is conceded that there is a decided conflict in the evidence as to what occurred during the disturbance. This probably arises from the fact that beer was flowing freely at the park, and many of the witnesses were under its influence, and did not remember the facts alike. In State v. Mahan, 68 Iowa, 304 (20 N. W. Rep. 449) and (27 N. W. Rep. 249), it is said: "The law of self-defense is well settled in this state. The killing of an assailant is justified on this ground only when it is, or reasonably appears to be, the only means of saving the life of the one assaulted, or of preventing some great in- jury to his person." And see, also, State v. Cross, 68 Iowa, 180 (26 N. W. Rep. 62) ; State by Shelton, 64 Iowa, 333 (20 N. W. Rep. 459) ; State by Maloy, 44 Iowa, 104; State by Jones, 89 Iowa, 182 (56 N. W. Rep. 427). The court fully and correctly instructed the jury upon the law of self-defense, but complaint is made because the court did not, in its instructions, direct the jury that the de- fendant had the right to exercise the duties of his office outside the corporate limits of the city of Bellevue.
The following (among other) instructions, were given, as to the right and authority of the owners of Harmony Park and their agents, to maintain order at the dance; "(42) It was the duty of the proprietor of said park to see that good order was maintained during the continuance of the dance or ball, to quell all disturbances, and to protect, as far as lay in their power, any one present at it, and taking part in the dance, from assault or violence. They had the right to remove from the premises anyone who was creating disturbance, or making as- sault upon any one present, and this they could do by force. To secure good order, and to prevent tumult and disturbance, they had the right to employ such persons as they deemed necessary and proper for such purpose. (43) The de- fendant, it is undisputed, was, at the time of the homicide, marshal of the town
278
HISTORY OF JACKSON COUNTY
of Bellevue, the authority of the defendant as a peace officer would not extend beyond its corporate limits ; but, while this may be true, yet, if he was employed by the proprietors of said park to be present at said dance to aid in preserving peace and good order, and was there for that purpose, to that extent he would be representing the proprietors of the park, and could exercise such power as they could in these particulars-that is in maintaining order and removing dis- orderly persons. But, independently of all this, any private individual would, un- der the law, have the right to arrest without warrant, and take into custody, any one who was at the time engaged in a breach of the peace." It will readily be seen that these instruments required the jury to regard the defendant as author- ized, by reason of his appointment, by the proprietors of the place, or independ- ent of any appointment, to arrest the deceased and take him into custody, if he was engaged in a breach of peace. The effect of the instructions was to give the defendant power and authority in making an arrest, the same as if his juris- diction extended beyond the corporate limits of Bellevue. The court further instructed the jury, in substance that if it was the purpose of the defendants to arrest and remove Hoover and he resisted the defendant, then he had the right to use such a degree of force as was reasonably necessary to reduce him to sub- mission; and, if the resistance was violent and determined, the defendant was not required to make nice calculations as to the degree of force necessary to ac- complish the purpose. These and other instructions are in line with well set- tled rules of law defining the means which may be employed in making arrests. To excuse the taking of life, it must appear that it was absolutely necessary, in order to make the arrest and secure the prisoner. (See I Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, pages 745-746.) As there is no evidence in this case that any such necessity to take life existed, we express no opinion as to what will excuse the killing of a . person by one making an arrest.
Other questions are discussed which are not of sufficient importance to de- mand special mention. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
THE STORY OF THE MINA KEIL MURDER.
On the 4th day of July, 1896, in Washington township, about six miles south of Bellevue, Iowa, was perpetrated one of the most cruel, most brutal and uncalled for murders in the criminal history of the country. On that beau- tiful, sunny summer day, when Dame Nature had bedecked herself in her most becoming garb, and wreathed her face in sweetest smiles, when the cannon were booming in the towns where the natal day was being celebrated, and the country people were flocking in to the towns to take part in the festivities, there was a shadow of impending doom hanging over two homes in Wash- ington township that was destined to darken the lives of the inmates for all of their future lives. Sophia Keil, a widow, with her family was living on a two hundred acre farm in section 5, and Henry Eckerlebe and family were living on a one hundred and twenty acre farm adjoining, the houses being only about twenty rods apart, though not visible one from the other, on account of an intervening hill. The families had long been near neighbors and had been on good terms, except for unpleasant incidents caused by Christian Eckerlebe, the oldest son of Henry Eckerlebe, having become infatuated by pretty, win- some Mina Keil, the eighteen year old daughter of Sophia Keil, and persecut- ing the girl with his unwelcome attentions, having gone so far, at one time, as to strike her for refusing to dance with him. The evidence brought out at the trial of Eckerlebe showed that on that Fourth of July morning, he had called at the Keil home early in the morning and had learned how and where each member of the Keil family expected to pass the day. Chris. had already gone to Bellevue on his bicycle, Fred was sick and would stay at home, Mina was going in the afternoon to a Mr. Guinthers to attend an ice cream party, and at night would attend a dance at another neighbor's, Peter Hoffs. The
279
HISTORY OF JACKSON COUNTY
Guinthers lived south of Keil's place, when members of the Keil family had occasion to go to Guinthers' place, they always went the lane or pasture road. Eckerlebe, after securing the information desired, departed, as he said, for Bellevue, but soon turned back and lay on the hillside where he could watch the Lane road. At 10 o'clock a. m., according to the statements of his brothers, he went home and got some breakfast, and told the boys he was going to Bellevue. At 1 :30 p. m., Mina, having packed her ball dress in a market basket, set out for Guinthers by way of the Lane road. What happened when she came to where the degenerate neighbor boy was lying in wait, armed with a revolver was told in dumb language by the blood covered, mangled and bruised body of the dead girl when found on the afternoon of the 5th of July, and later by the confession of the dastard who had committed the awful crime, made to a fellow prisoner in the Andrew jail, where he had been confined after a hearing before a magistrate in Bellevue. As this case was the most costly of any trial that Jackson county ever had to pay for, and excited more interest than any, with the possible exception of the famous Cronk murder, in 1867, the mystery of which has never been solved, and in all probability never will be, we propose to give a full history of the trial, in condensed form as taken by a newspaper reporter at the time. On account of the great excitement over the murder, the case was taken by change of venue to Clinton county, a jury was secured and the trial was presided over by Judge P. B. Wolfe. After a long, hard fought legal battle, the case was given to the jury, which after be- ing out one hour and thirty minutes, brought in a verdict of murder in the first degree, with penalty of death. Shortly after the conclusion of the trial, it developed that one of the jurors, while at a party, soon after the murder, had said that hanging was too good for the guilty party. This was considered sufficient ground for a new trial, and a new trial was ordered. Between the time of the first and second trial of the case, the principal witness for the state, Jones Patrick Murphy, to whom Eckerlebe was alleged to have confessed to the murder, made his escape from the Maquoketa jail, and could not be pro- duced at the second trial, which greatly complicated the case. However, after long arguments and demurrers, the evidence of Murphy in the former trial was admitted, and after another long, hardly contested legal battle in court, pre- sided over by Judge C. M. Waterman, a jury again found the defendant guilty, and fixed his punishment at imprisonment for life in the State Peni- tentiary, at Anamosa, where he was taken. Some months after his incarcera- tion there, he was adjudged insane and was placed in the insane ward and has remained there ever since. Eckerlebe's father sold his farm and spent the pro- ceeds in defending his son. When the time for an appeal after the last trial passed all the exhibits, or relics of the murder were on order of the presiding judge, turned over to the Ellis Historical Collection, in Maquoketa.
TRIAL OF CHRISTIAN ECKERLEBE.
Christian Eckerlebe was placed on trial in the District Court of Clinton county on Monday, February 1, 1897, for the murder of Miss Mina Keil, on the 4th day of July, 1896. Court was opened with Judge P. B. Wolfe pre- siding.
The following jury was empaneled and sworn at 4:45 p. m .: Anton Malin, Clinton ; Fred Stine, Bloomfield ; Henry Tyler, Camanche ; Arthur McCarthy, Lyons; Leonard Horsefall, Clinton ; George Nattinger, Lyons; M. W. Burnett, Berlin ; Thos. Carey, Clinton ; John Connole, Dewitt ; Harlow H. Peterson, Olive ; John Oleson, Lyons; L. F. Swaney, Clinton.
The latter two were talesmen. Twenty-seven men were put on the stand. During the drawing of the jury the prisoner sat very quiet in his chair, and although his face was flushed crimson, otherwise he was apparently as uncon- cerned as any one in the court room.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.