Part 3 of 4. On 28 April 1881, the trial of Henry Romberger and Frank Romberger for the murder of Daniel Troutman began in Dauphin County Court, Harrisburg. Here follows the reporting on the trial from the Harrisburg Telegraph, 28 April 1881 through 2 May 1881.
Note: The Harrisburg Telegraph spelled the surname “Romberger.”
For all other posted parts of this series of 4 articles, see: First Trial of Henry Romberger, etc.
________________________________
THE DEFENDANTS’ DENIAL
THEY SAY THEY WEREN’T THERE
Trying to Upset the Commonwealth’s Strong Case with an Alibi – The Testimony Relied on by the Defense – &c., &c., &c., &c.
Our report closed yesterday afternoon with the discussion of the admissibility of Henry Romberger’s confession, the jury having been retired from the court room.
After a desultory discussion, participated in by all the attorneys, the Court decided that the officer had not held out inducements to Henry Romberger to make the confession, and the jury was recalled. Mr. Williard then went on with his testimony. He said that after the hearing he took Henry to the hotel at Uniontown for breakfast. He then brought the prisoner to the county jail. This was Monday. Henry told witness to come back on Tuesday before he went home. Accordingly he went to the jail on Tuesday, and after some preliminary conversation Henry said: “Yes, I am one of the men and Jim Romberger was with me.” The witness went back to Lykens, but could not find a Jim Romberger. He arrested Frank Romberger, but Frank was discharged by ‘Squire Kendall, of Lykens. The witness then came back to the county jail and told Henry he had not told the truth; for there was no Jim Romberger in Lykens. Henry said: “If I said Jim I was mistaken. It was Frank Romberger who was with me.” The witness then got a new warrant from Alderman Maurer and rearrested Frank and brought him to Harrisburg. Henry also gave him the names of the witnesses who saw Frank get into the carriage in front of Shiebly’s on the Sunday afternoon. The witness had another conversation with Henry before the hearing at the alderman’s office. Messrs. Dockey, Bingaman, Snyder, and Fox, the underkeeper were present at the time. In this confession, as detailed by witness, Henry said he hired a gray horse and a closed carriage from Shadel of Tower City, on Sunday, the 14th. He met Frank at Shiebly’s about five o’clock. Frank got into the carriage and they drove to a short distance from Troutman’s where they watched the house. They went into the house and Frank demanded the money from Troutman, first in English and then in German. The old man wanted to go out, but they wouldn’t let him. When the old man got his gun they ran out, Henry going to the left and Frank to the right. The old man followed Henry, who jumped over the fence and, seeing the old man pointing his gun at him, dropped to the ground. The old man fired and then there was another shot. Henry did not know whether Frank fired the shot that killed the old man, but Frank did say to him: “I did fire the shot.” The cross-examination did not shake Williard’s testimony, neither did it show that any inducements had been held out for a confession.
John N. Bingaman was present in the jail when Henry Romberger made this confession. The witness then detailed the confession, as had Mr. Williard before him. The Commonwealth then offered in evidence the bullet that was found in the murdered man’s body, and also a plot of the Troutman property. The Commonwealth then rested.
Mr. Bowman then opened the case for the defense of Henry Romberger. He referred to the omnipotence of the Commonwealth and the poverty and weakness of the defendant, and appealed to the jury to deal justly with and without prejudice against the defendant. Counsel then said he expected to prove Henry’s innocence by showing that at the time the murder was committed he was at another place and further, that as to the confessions it would be shown that the officers treated Henry to liquor and surrounded him with such duress that were forced from him.
Mr. Durbin opened for the defense of Frank Romberger. He referred to the disposition of people to believe evil rather than good of their fellow men. Especially is this so when human life is taken, and hence things seem to dovetail and thus make out an apparently strong case. Counsel said they would be able to show that on the night the murder occurred Frank was at Coaldale visiting a grass widow, although he is a married man. Frank may have ridden in the carriage, but is he did he got out at the cross-roads and went to Coaldale.
Sarah Schamber was the first witness for the defense. She said on the 14th of November, about 9 ½ o’clock in the evening, Frank Romberger came out of the next house to mine. She lives in Coaldale, Wiconisco Township. When Frank came out of the house he said: “Good night Ida; take good care of yourself. I’ll be over tomorrow night.” Then he ran down the hill.
While waiting for the Commonwealth to cross-examine Mrs. Schamber, S. M. Fenn was sworn. He testified that he was acquainted with Wiconisco Township, and that a map of the township that was offered in evidence was a correct draft. Coaldale is about three-quarters of a mile below Lykens.
When Mr. Fenn left the stand the district attorney took Mrs. Schamber in hand on cross examination.
She adhered to her story, and the close questioning of the district attorney got her into only one contradiction, which was as to the time she first told her husband that Frank was in Ida’s house. At one time she said she told her husband when they passed Ida’s house on the way from church, and at another time she declared she not told him until after he had gone to bed. The court then adjourned until this morning, the district attorney saying he might want to cross-examine the last witness a little further.
This Morning ‘s Session.
Court reassembled at 8:30. The proceedings opened by Judge Pearson cautioning the jury that confession of Henry Romberger so far as it implicated Frank must be discarded. The confession, of course, is good as against Henry, but not as against Frank. The jury would, therefore, discard Henry’s confession so far as it affected Frank, but they should consider the testimony against Frank without regard to Henry’s confession.
Mrs. Schamber was recalled for cross-examination. She was examined in “Squire Kendall’s office in Lykens, a few days after the murder. She declared she swore to the same thing before Kendall that she swore to before the court yesterday. Neither did she tell Detective Anderson that she stayed at home that Sunday evening and watched Frank.
Grafton Fox testified that Frank Romberger had neither mustache nor whiskers when brought to the jail.
Benjamin Dockey was the second witness for the defense. He assisted to watch Henry Romberger at Mr. Troutman’s house on November 15. Constable Williard asked him to assist. Nothing was said to Henry about making a confession at Boyer’s Hotel in Uniontown. On the road from Uniontown witness said to Henry: “You are in a bad fix.” He further stated that men had turned State’s evidence, but he was not an attorney and could not tell him what to do. About the same conversation took place in the jail.
On cross-examination witness said he spoke to Henry about turning State’s evidence and advised him to get a lawyer, as he knew nothing about such matters. He never suggested to Henry that he should make a confession against himself. All he said to Henry was: “Henry, you are in a bad fix; if I was in your place I would tell on the other one.”
John E. Boyer keeps a hotel in Uniontown. Constable Williard and Mr. Dockey brought Henry Romberger to his hotel. He heard some persons ask Henry who was with him and tell him that he better confess. He heard Dockey talk to Henry about confessing, but not Williard. Dockey said to Henry, “You had better tell who was with you.” There was no cross-examination.
Mrs. Boyer is the wife of John D. Boyer. She gave about the same testimony as her husband.
The defense then said their case was closed.
The Commonwealth then opened in rebuttal.
Joshua Schamber is the husband of Mrs. Schamber, a witness for the defense. On the Sunday night of the murder he and his wife went to church about 5:45. They returned about 9:15, and went to bed together about ten o’clock. Neither went out after they returned. He remembered of passing Ida Graves’ house this evening, but they didn’t hear any one in there. They did hear some one in there, though, on the Sunday night before, and then his wife said she thought it was Frank Romberger. On cross-examination he said he was positive his wife was not out on the Sunday night of the murder after they came home from church.
Lewis Knively Jr. was recalled. He testified that Frank Romberger was working in the mines on Friday night before the murder. This was in contradiction of Mrs. Schamber, who swore Frank Romberger was at Ida Graves’ house on the Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights of the week of the murder. On cross-examination he said he fixed the time by remembering the presence of an amusement company at Lykens, and also because their gang of miners had made arrangements to buy a keg of beer to be drank on the next day, Saturday.
S. J. Anderson is a detective. While investigation this case he called on Mrs. Schamber. She told him that she had see Frank Romberger on the night of the murder at Ida Graves’ house about dusk. This was to contradict Mrs. Schamber, who swore she had not told Anderson anything of the kind.
Benjamin Dockey was recalled. He testified that he was at the hearing at ‘Squire Kendall’s and heard Mrs. Schamber testify there. She swore that she saw Frank Romberger go into Ida Graves’ house on the night of the murder about seven o’clock and saw him come out about ten o’clock, and that she knew he was there the whole time because she heard him talk and watched a little. This was a contradiction of Mrs. Schamber, who swore in court that she did not see Frank go into Ida Graves’, but saw him come out.
Constable Williard was recalled and corroborated the above testimony of Mr. Dockey.
The Commonwealth then admitted that the gun found near Daniel Troutman’s body was a single-barrelled flint lock gun and was not loaded when found. The Commonwealth then closed.
Mr. Durbin stated the law position of the defense. He asked the court to charge the jury that if they believed Frank went to Troutman’s house to commit a burglary, and after arriving there gave up the burglary, and was going away when Troutman fired and he fired in return, killing Troutman, the prisoners are not guilty of murder. To sustain his request to charge, Mr. Durbin read from a large number of decisions and authorities.
Mr. Munech said that counsel for Henry Romberger regarded the law in his case as well settled. But they would like some understanding on the subject of his confession. Counsel asked that the court instruct the jury that if they believed Henry’s confession was made under such circumstances that he thought he was under duress, it should not be given much weight.
Mr. Hollinger for the Commonwealth then controverted some of the authorities supporting the case against the prisoners.. Mr. Hollinger then made a very strong presentation of the facts in the case as applicable to the law cited by him. He contended that the murderers never gave up their design to commit a burglary until after Troutman was shot, because after he had been shot and Mrs. Troutman was running for help one of the murderers said: “There goes the woman; we must go after her.”
Mr. McCarrell also presented some authorities on the subject of confessions, and contended that a confession could only be rejected when the inducement held out is so strong as to probably lead a prisoner to make a false confession for the sake of saving himself.
Mr. Bowman then made an address to the jury in behalf of Henry Romberger. He began by defining the degree of murder. To establish murder in the first degree there must be more than malice shown, there must be an intention to kill. Were these men engaged in an attempt to commit a burglary? There is no testimony that the door was closed. Mrs. Troutman is not clear that the door was closed. If the door was not closed it was not a burglary.
At this point the court interjected with: “Would it not be well then to inquire whether there was a robbery attempted. If a robbery was attempted it is just as bad as if a burglary had been attempted.”
Mr. Bowman then went on to detail the facts in the case and argued that from them there was a fair presumption that these men did not intend to kill Mr. Troutman. Mr. Bowman closed his plea with a very eloquent appeal for mercy at the hands of the jury.
This Afternoon’s Proceedings.
Court met at 2 o’clock. Mr. Durbin immediately began his closing plea for Frank Romberger. Counsel said the first duty of the jury would be to determine whether Frank was present at the scene of the murder, and if he was whether he did the deed. The different degrees of murder were then reviewed. Supposing Frank and Henry were at Troutman’s house, it is clear they went to rob, not to murder. Counsel then went over the evidence in regard to what took place in Troutman’s bedroom. It was contended that when the men ran out, pursued by the deceased, it was evident that they had given up their design of burglary; that they were trying to get out of the scrape. Then when Troutman fired the man with the pistol shot him, being forced to it by impulse or by a sudden passion aroused by the old man’s shooting. Again, was the killing done in an attempt to perpetrate a burglary. The attempt must have ceased when they ran out. They may have changed their minds about committing the burglary when the old man confronted them, and they saw it was impracticable. If they had not changed their minds why did they not, after killing the old man, attack the woman and ransack the house? Certainly it looks as if they had given up the attempt to rob, and were going away when the old man fired. But was Frank at the Troutman house? The only evidence that he was is that he was seen getting into a carriage below Lykens. It is said Henry was in the carriage. John Deitrich testified he looked in the carriage and saw Henry and Frank. This was about dark. Now, can you believe this man, taking into consideration the darkness and the closed carriage. Taking into account these facts, and the fact that Mr. Snyder swore this carriage was going fast while Mr. Deitrich says it was going slow, can you believe him? If you do not believe this one fact you must discard all his evidence. Discarding Deitrich’s testimony, who saw Frank? No one. Counsel then labored to show that the witness who swore Frank was at Coaldale on the night of the murder, told the truth, and closed with an appeal to the jury to give Frank Romberger the benefit of any doubt that may arise in their minds.
Mr. Muench then made the closing address for the defense. He said this case was too important for counsel to instruct the jury as to the law. The law would be given by the court, and by that the jury must act. A most foul and heinous murder was committed. It cannot be denied that Daniel Troutman was killed. Was it done by these men? Was it done in the perpetration, or attempted perpetration, of a burglary or robbery? If it was, and you are convinced these men did it, then it is murder in the first degree, and these men’s lives must pay the forfeit. Counsel then said he appeared solely for Henry, and to his case he addressed himself. In commenting on the confessions of Henry, Mr. Muench said it was remarkable how defective were the memories of the men who hear the confession in regard to everything preceding the making of the confession. They could remember everything Henry said against himself, but could not remember anything that brought about that confession.
Counsel then graphically described the arrest of Henry, averring that the crowds that followed him to the ‘squire’s office and their shouts, “lynch him, lynch him,” and the frequent reference to the Raber murder in Lebanon county, so worked upon his mind that he was willing to confess anything, acknowledge anything, that offered him a chance of temporary escape. The evidence was then carefully scanned and examined, and pronounced insufficient to convict of murder in the first degree. Mr. Muench’s argument was nearly an hour in length and was an eloquent and able plea in behalf of the prisoner.
District Attorney McCarrell closed for the Commonwealth. His address was clear, forcible and convincing. He carefully reviewed the evidence, taking up one link after another and forging it into a chain of evidence that drew tightly around the defendants. Judge Pearson then began his charge to the jury and is talking as this report closes.
__________________________________
From the Harrisburg Telegraph, 30 April 1881, via Newspapers.com.
Corrections and additional information should be added as comments to this post.