Court Records: Wapello County District Court, Murder Trial of Peter Augustine
**************************************************************
Copyright. All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
ISGENWEB ARCHIVES NOTICE:  These electronic pages may NOT be 
reproduced in any format for profit or presentation by any other 
organization or person. Persons or organizations desiring to use this 
material, must obtain the written consent of the contributor, or the 
legal representative of the submitter, and contact the listed USGenWeb 
archivist with proof of this consent. The submitter has given 
permission to the USGenWeb Archives to store the file permanently for 
free access.
http://www.usgwarchives.net
****************************************************************
Contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by Vlouise Helmer.
vlouise_@hotmail.com
 
LDS microfilm 979094 [Item 1] Wapello County District Records 
Volume 5 (1863-66)
Transcribed from the original clerk's record.
 
Page 471 Saturday Dec 9th 1865 –12th Day of Term
State of Iowa} 
vs.          } Assault with intent to Commit Murder
Peter Augustine}
 
   Comes now this cause on to be heard 
and the Grand Jury Came into the Court and the 
Foreman John Coyan in the presence of the Grand Jury 
presented their Indictment against the Defendant Peter 
Augustine. Charging him with the crime of assault 
with intent to commit Murder, and the cause 
came on for further hearing, and the State of Iowa 
came by A. Harris District Atty, and the Defendant 
being three times Solemnly Called came not but 
made Default, of this undertaking for his appearance 
at the present term of the District Court, whereupon 
on motion said Default is entered against him and the 
Cause is Continued generally, and said Default to 
be canceled when said Defendant Peter Augustine shall 
give approved Bond for his appearance at the next 
Term of the District Court of Wapello County.
 
Page 556 Wednesday May 30 1866 3rd Day of the Session 
Present Hon HH Trimble Judge
State of Iowa }
vs            }  Assault with intent to Murder.
Peter Augustine}
     And now on this 29th day of May 
A.D. 1866, this Cause coming on for hearing, Comes the State of 
Iowa by A Harris Esq Dist Prosecutor, and the 
Defendant by Hendershott & Burton his attys, and in his own proper person, 
and being arraigned says he is Indicted by his 
right name, and files herein his plea of not guilty, 
whereupon a Jury of Twelve good and lawful men 
to wit: George NEVILLE, John MARTZ, Samuel DORR, W.P. 
ROWELL, B.D. WOLF, S.E. RUPE, Wm OVERTURF, Alexander 
FORSHA, John H. CARTER, S. DOGGETT, David FINLEY and 
Charles MILLER, were called and duly Sworn to well 
and truly try the issue Joined in said Cause, and a 
true verdict render therein according to law and the 
evidence, And after hearing all the evidence, the 
Arguments of Counsel and receiving the instructions of 
the Court, retired in Charge of a Sworn Bailiff, and 
afterwards to wit on the 30th day of May 1866,returned 
into open Court their verdict in words as follows, 
We the Jury find the Defendant guilty of an 
assault. Signed W.P. ROWELL Foreman, whereupon 
the District Attorney filed his motion to Enter Judg= 
ment upon the Verdict and Defendant's counsel filed their 
motion to Discharge Defendant, and day as given.
 
Page 603 Monday June 4, 1866 – 9 Day 
Present Hon HH Trimble Judge
State of Iowa }
vs            }  Assault with intent to Murder.
Peter Augustine}
     And afterwards to wit on the   [blank]  
of Issue it being the day Set for Judgment, the District 
Atty moved the Court to pronounce Judgment in the 
verdict of the Jury but the Court overruled said Motion 
and refused to render judgment on said verdict 
for the reason that the words "if punishable by Indict=
Ment" in Section 4835, of the revision ousted the Court 
of its Jurisdiction in the case to which ruling 
the Dist Atty excepted. Whereupon the Defendant moved 
the Court by Hendershott & Benton his Atty to discharge 
the Defendant which motion was as follows,
"    [blank]                            and now on
this 30th day of May 1866, in the Coming of the verdict of 
the jury herein the Deft files his motion to be discharged
1st Because he says he was Indicted for the crime of 
assault with intent to murder, and the verdict of the 
Jury in the case finds the deft guilty only of a 
common and simple assault.
2nd Because said verdict does not Justify the Judgment 
of the Court against the Deft.
3rd Because this Court has no Jurisdiction to try Deft 
for assault nor to render Judgment against him on the 
verdict rendered by the jury.
4th Because the verdict of the Jury is equivalent to a ver=
dict of not guilty & the Deft should be discharged 
the Court having no original Jurisdiction to try Deft 
for assault & to render the Judgment in the case, which 
motion was sustained by the Court to which ruling the 
Dist Atty also excepts."

*******************************************************************
USGENWEB NOTICE: Printing this file by non-commercial individuals 
and libraries is encouraged, as long as all notices and submitter 
information is included. Any other use, including copying files to 
other sites requires permission from the submitters PRIOR to uploading 
to any other sites. We encourage links to the state and county table 
of contents.
*******************************************************************