Show I HAYKEN JURY L COULDNT AGREE They Stood Seven for Conviction Convic-tion and One for Acquittal Ac-quittal z COURT DISCHARGES THEM I His Honor Thinks Evidence Did Not Warrant Conviction 5nH However There Was Room for An Honest Diflcrence of Opinion V Amnztg the Jurors and Hefuscs Again to Instruct Them as to Their Vcr < liet UOTV the Jury Stood at Various Times During Their Deliberation Case Will 1robaljly He Heard Over Again at Once Seven for conviction and one for acquittal ac-quittal is the way the jury in the Hay ken bribery case stood when they were discharged by Judge HUes yesterday I yes-terday morning on their declaration that after being out twentytwo hours there was no possibility of their agreeing agree-ing on a verdict The court the defendant the attorneys at-torneys on both sides and a few spectators spec-tators assembled in the court room at 10 oclock in the morning No message had been sent by the jurors but Judge Hiles ordered that they be brought I invo court and looking pale haggard and worn from their weary vigils ina I II cold cheerless room without fire or artificial heat of any kind and only 1 hard chairs and benches to sit or recline re-cline on they filed in and tool their seats in the jury box Have you agreed upon a verdict gentlemen asked Judge HUes Foreman Fore-man F E Schoppe replied that they 1 had not and his honor then asked if thqre was any probability of their coming com-ing to an agreement The foreman again replied that thee was none Judge Dey of counsel for the defendant de-fendant then essayed to address court but before this was permitted Judge Riles directed that the jurors retire to his private room so that they might not be affected in their further deliberations deliber-ations by anything they might hear Jude Dey then addressed the court in an informal way suggesting that i would b proper for his honor to instruct in-struct the jury to return < a verdict of not guilty on the ground that the corpus delicti had not been proved Thecounty attorney opposed this and his honor said he had very grave doubts as to whether he should do so or not there was room on considering consider-ing the evidence for an honest difference of opinion among the jurors as to whether the body of the I offense had been proved or not yet he was of the opinion that the evidence would not warrant a conviction but I as the testimony left room for an honest hon-est difference of opinion among the members of the jury he would not instruct in-struct them as to their verdict The jurors were then conducted into court and his honor on their statement I that there was no chance of an agreement agree-ment discharged them from the case AN UNUSUAL SITUATION t The situation was a most unusual one The judge all through > the trial wa in doubt as to whether or not he should instruct the jury t bring in a verdict of not guilty on the < ground i that < the corpus delicti the body of the offense had not been proved He finally fin-ally decided to let the juy settle the point and gave such instructions in his charge that both sides expressed themselves a being satisfied f The jury retired to their room and elected F E Schcppe foreman The first ballet showed H C Bleasdel D E Burley A W Harvey and F E Schopi 4 for conviction J H Wood mansee Edward Johnson Frank May ana James Austin 4 for acquittal discussion followed Then a long folowed mainly on the question of whether or not the corpus delici had been proved whether or not the body of the offense bad been shown by evidence other than Haykens own admissions oral and written Those for conviction argued ar-gued that this was a point too fine for the average juror to decide They thought the judge had thrown the responsibility re-sponsibility on the jury and the best thing to do was to throw it back on rube judge by finding the defendant Sit on general principles on the theory that he judge if the jury erred in returning that kir3 of a verdict would set it aside THE FIRST TO CHANGE On the next ballot Juror Woodman ee changed his vote t guilty making 5 to 3 Then more talk on the corpus I delicti and general principles resulted i In converting Juror Johnson to the side of conviction Six to two now std the ballot Further reasoning and arguments on the same line caused Frank May to vote for conviction Seven jurors for a verdict of guilty and James Austin veritt gi1y Autn alone on the other side for a verdict of oiot guilty at S oclock on Saturday I evening AUSTIN WAS FIRM Austin says the seven jurors argued cajoled and reasoned with him for hours but he remained obdurate He was satisfied in his own mind that I the evidence didnt warrant him in rendering I dering a verdict of guilty and he would stay till Christmas if the others could By 2 oclock in the morning they I were utterly weary and the majority Ihad come to the conclusion that It was no use talking to Austin anymore They settled down to take a littlerest 11 P I u the hard benches and the cold room were unfavorable conditions and after unsuccessful efforts to sleep the discussion was carried on intermittent 1 r ly until they were relieved at 10 oclock I In the morning Mr Austin says he could not conscientiously con-scientiously according to the evidence vote for conviction and now that Judge Hiles spoke as he did he is more convinced than ever that he was right MAY TRY AT ONCE The probability is that the case will be tried over again riSM away as most of the witnesses are atill here and it would be less expensive to try It row than at some future date The county attorney however stated that 1 1 he would decide today whether 0 start c c on it at once or take up the case against Herman Bamberger for soliciting solic-iting a bribe from the Johnson Heating Heat-ing Regulator company of Milwaukee |