Part 1 of 6. In October 1881, new trials began for Henry Romberger and Frank Romberger, who had been previously been convicted of the murder of Daniel Troutman; the new trials were granted because of problems with the instructions the judge gave to the jury in the first trial. In the end, both were again found guilty of murder in the first degree. This series of posts follows the second trials through to their conclusion, including the death sentences imposed by the court. The newspaper articles describing the trials are from the Harrisburg Telegraph.
For all other parts of this series on the second trials, see: Second Trials of Henry Romberger, etc.
For all parts of the series on the first trial, see: First Trial of Henry Romberger & Frank Romberger.
________________________________
From the Harrisburg Telegraph, 9 August 1881:
AN HOUR IN PRISON
A Talk Through the Iron Grating of the Cells
A TELEGRAPH reporter had a short conversation with two of the men now confined in the county prison on a charge of murder. The first cell at which the reporter stopped was that of Frank Romberger. Frank always receives callers with a hearty, cordial greeting. The reporter had not seen him for weeks, and in a jovial, gushing way he reminder him of his neglect to call oftener. “You look as if you have lost flab, Frank,” remarked the reporter. “It could not be otherwise,” said he, laughing, “in a box like this. But I’m all right otherwise, even if the malaria has pulled me down.” “Do you get out occasionally?” “Yes, for a walk in the yard.” “Do you and Henry Romberger ever meet in the yard?” “No, sir. We never get out together. We have never met to speak since our arrest. He nods to me when he passes my cell, but we never speak. I have nothing against Henry, though he has not acted the fair thing to me.” As the reporter was leaving, Frank requested him to return thanks to John A. Hopkins, of Boas’ Saw Mill, and William H. Swartz, of Bailey’s Nail Works, for kindness since he has been in prison, and to Miss Flora E. Young, who furnished him with reading matter. Frank’s cell has been changed throughout. He had its walls frescoed in bright colors, and the ceiling hung in hundreds of pendants to which stars were attached. All this is removed and the walls are now dadoed in slate color, while at the end above the dadoe are two large urns, with a smaller one in the center, and above this rise a number of fancy pictures of ballad girls and horses, in the center of which is what Frank called a portrait of a celebrated horse trainer of Union Deposit.
Frank still pursues his drawing in German text letters, mottoes, monograms and other ornaments, which he executes with great skill.
Henry was next visited, and to the greeting of the reporter, showed the old taciturn, somber aspect, a man lacking in enthusiasm, and in this, unlike Frank, who is sanguine and impulsive in action. Henry passes his time in reading and writing, his German text mottoes being executed in fine style. He suffers from heart disease, and has lost in flesh. His cell is neat and clean in appearance.
Both men look forward sanguinely to the new trial, which they now have reason to believe will not take place until the 17th of October. Frank intends to secure additional counsel. Henry will content himself with his former counsel, Robert L. Muench, Esq., in whom he has great confidence.
___________________________________
From the Harrisburg Telegraph, 31 August 1881:
MURDER TRIAL JURORS
The List of Names from which Will be Selected a Jury to Try the Rombergers
Sheriff Reed and Jury Commissioners Buffington and Haehnlen this morning drew the following petit jurors to serve at the special term of court, beginning October 17th, for the purpose of trying Henry Romberger and Frank Romberger, charged with the murder of Daniel Troutman, at Uniontown, on the 12th of November, 1880.
Charles E. Roumfort, Harrisburg; George W. Simmons, Harrisburg; Allen Swab, Washington Township; Francis O. Hummel, Hummelstown; George A. Deihl, Harrisburg; Amos E. Fisler, Susquehanna Township; M. J. Stoner, Lower Swatara Township; Isaac Mumma, Lower Swatara Township; Abraham Ebersole, Lower Paxton Township; J. B. Gise, Gratz; Robert T. Beatty, Harrisburg; David Neagley, Upper Paxton Township; John Straw, Middle Paxton Township; John A. Bretz, Derry; Jacob Roop, Lower Swatara Township; Jonas F. Rudy, Susquehanna Township; C. H. VanHorn, Susquehanna Township; Henry Shoop Sr., Harrisburg; J. E. Rutter, Lykens Borough; Jacob Nissley, Middletown; John H. Keen, Wiconisco; Benjamin Booker, Londonderry Township; Joseph Sheesley, Wayne Township; Charles S. Segelbaum, Harrisburg; William F. Rutherford, Swatara Township; John Rutter, Halifax Township; John Ackerman, Middletown; T. Rockhill Smith, Harrisburg; Jacob McCoy, Lykens Borough; A. Boyd Hamilton, Harrisburg; Israel Deckard, Middletown; Wilson J. Baker; Harrisburg; David Boyer, Halifax Township; Solomon Swartz, Lower Swatara Township; Jonathan Spayd, Jefferson Township; Elias Fertig, Middle Paxton Township; John Forney, Middle Paxton Township; George W. Fox, West Hanover Township; Lerue Metzger, Harrisburg; Jacob Hocker, Susquehanna Township; J. E. Allen, Harrisburg; J. L. Yoder, Wiconisco; B. W. Holtzman, Upper Paxton Township; Francis Wyeth, Harrisburg; William Swab, Millersburg; Solomon Snyder, Harrisburg; George Shope, Middle Paxton Township; David R. Elder, Swatara.
____________________________________
From the Harrisburg Telegraph, 22 September 1881:
THE COMING MURDER TRIALS
To Take Place in October
The second trial of the Rombergers for the murder of Daniel Troutman will take place at a special session of oyer and terminer court, beginning October 17th. The prisoners have secured additional counsel with those engaged on the first trial, and are in better spirits regarding the outcome than before….
__________________________________
From the Harrisburg Telegraph, 29 September 1881:
Trial of the Rombergers
The second trial of the Rombergers, for the murder of the old man Troutman, will begin in two weeks from next Monday. R. L. Muench will continue the defense of Henry Romberger, but has declined to undertake that of Frank in connection therewith. Frank has not as yet secured counsel other than that he had at the late trial.
It is understood that District Attorney McCarrell has a large amount of new testimony, which is strong and will have a very damaging effect on the prisoners.
Both men are in their usual good spirits – Frank is sanguine and full of hope, while Henry is quiet, but still hopeful, resting his expectations on a “fair trial” by which he believes he will be acquitted.
_______________________________
From the Harrisburg Telegraph, 8 October 1881:
THE MURDER TRIALS
Frank Romberger’s Counsel Withdraws from the Case.
The trial[s] of Henry Romberger and Frank Romberger, fixed to begin on October 17th, create[s] more than usual interest. Henry will be defended by Messrs. Muench and Bowman, who were his counsel on the first trial, assigned by the court. Frank was defended by James Durbin, Esq., of Lykens, and it is expected that he would act in the same capacity at the next trial. This morning Frank received a letter from Mr. Durbin in which he announced that he withdraws from the case, and would let the court assign Frank counsel, but that he would give the new counsel all the benefit of his knowledge of the case. Frank immediately answered begging Mr. Durbin not to desert him. If Mr. Durbin persists in withdrawing, it is very probable that the cases will again have to be postponed, which the prisoners do not wish.
__________________________________
From the Harrisburg Telegraph, 14 October 1881
All the witnesses in the Troutman murder case have been subpoenaed. It is said that the Commonwealth will have abundant new evidence against the Rombergers, the nature of which is kept secret.
_________________________________
From the Harrisburg Telegraph, 17 October 1881:
THE MURDER TRIALS
Beginning of the Special Term to Try the Rombergers
The special term of court for the trial of Henry Romberger and Frank Romberger, charged with the murder of Daniel Troutman, at Uniontown, on November 12, 1880 [sic], began this morning. Routine business took up the whole of the morning session, and it was ordered that the jury be drawn this afternoon at two o’clock.
A Second Trial – The Rombergers Commence Their Fight for Life.
At two o’clock this afternoon the special court convened for the trial of Henry Romberger and Frank Romberger, charged with the murder of Daniel Troutman, of Berrysburg [sic], assembled. It will be remembered that Henry Romberger and Frank Romberger were tried last spring and were found guilty of murder in the first degree, but on a motion for a new trial the court decided to give the defendants another chance for their lived, because at the first trial the court had given binding instructions to the jury as to the degree of guilt.
The crime will be remembered as especially atrocious. On a Sunday night in November, 1880, two men appeared in the bedroom where Daniel Troutman and his wife – an old couple – were in bed. The intruders demanded money, threatening to shoot the old man with a pistol unless he gave it. The old man suddenly jumped from his bed, and seizing an old shot fun, said “clear out.” The burglars ran from the house, pursued by the old man. When in the yard the old man fired his gun, whereupon one of the men returned the fire, the shot taking effect in Troutman’s breast. He lived long enough to tell how he was shot, and said Henry Rumberger was one of the men who came into the room. The other man he could not identify.
At 2:30 Henry Romberger and Frank Romberger were brought into the court room. They looked better in every way and displayed less nervousness than at the formal trial. They had the pallid complexion peculiar to inmates of Fort Duey, but in other respects there was nothing about their appearance to betoken that they had been immured in the county jail for nearly one year. They were nearly and plainly dressed, presenting a favorable contrast with their last appearance in the court room. District Attorney McCarrell and Mr. Hollinger appeared for the Commonwealth, and Robert L. Muench and S. S. Bowman for Henry Romberger and James C. Durbin for Frank Romberger. At 2:30 the District Attorney asked the defense if they were ready.
Henry Rumberger’s counsel answered in the affirmative.
“What says Frank?” asked Mr. McCarrel.
“We are ready,” replied Mr. Durbin “but we desire a separate trial.”
“That is your right,” responded the court.
The District Attorney then said he would elect to try Henry Romberger first, and follow his trial with that of Frank.
Mr. Muench then moved to quash the indictment on the ground that the jurors who found it had been summoned improperly, because their Christian names did not appear on the summons, they being designated in some cases by the initials of their Christian names only. Mr. Bowman further moved to quash because while the present venire commanded forty-eight jurors to be summoned, only forty-seven had been summoned. The court overruled both motions.
The following were then called and examined upon their voir dire:
Jacob Hocker, merchant, Highspire, had no opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. He was challenged peremptorily by the defense.
Abraham Ebersole, farmer, Lower Paxton Township, had no opinion as to the prisoner’s guilt, nor had he scruples as to capital punishment. But the Commonwealth challenged him.
Jonas F. Rudy, teacher, Susquehnanna Township, had formed no opinion, but he could enter the jury box and decide upon the evidence. Challenged by the defense.
Jonathan Spayd, farmer, Jefferson Township, had no opinion on the case, but he was challenged by the defense.
J. B. Gise, merchant, Gratz, had no particular opinion, except what he had said upon reading accounts of last trial. Challenged by the defense.
Elias Fertig, farmer, Middle Paxton Township, had no particular opinion on the case, but he had conscientious scruples on the subject of capital punishment. Challenged by the Commonwealth for cause and challenge sustained.
John H. Keen, blacksmith, Wiconisco, had formed and expressed an opinion, but he could decide the case on the evidence alone. Mr. McKeen became the first juror.
Israel Deckard, miller, Middletown, had formed no opinion, but he was challenged by the defense.
Isaac Mumma, farmer, Lower Swatara Townhip, had formed and expressed an opinion, but he could give a verdict on the evidence alone in this case. Challenged by the defense.
Larue Metzger, clerk, Harrisburg, had formed an opinion on the case, and doubted if he could give a verdict on the evidence alone in this case. Challenged for cause by the defense and challenge sustained.
J. L. Yoder, jeweler, Wiconisco, was excused on the ground of deafness.
Solomon Swartz, gentleman, Lower Swatara Township, had no opinion on the case, neither had he scruples on the subject of capital punishment, so he became the second juror.
Wilson J. Baker, clerk, Harrisburg, had an opinion, but could give a verdict on the evidence alone. Challenged by the defense.
John Ackerman, saddler, Middletown, had no opinion, but the defense challenged him.
George A. Deihl, moulder, Harrisburg, had no opinion, neither had he conscientious scruples on the subject of capital punishment, so he became juror No. 3.
William F. Rutherford, farmer, Swatara, had an opinion, but he could give a verdict on the evidence alone. Challenged by the defense.
C. H. VanHorn, farmer, Susquehanna, had formed and expressed an opinion, but he could give a verdict on the evidence alone. Challenged by the defense.
John J. Bretz, farmer, Derry, had no opinion, nor had he conscientious scruples on the subject of capital punishment. He was accepted as the fourth juror.
Jacob Nisley, gentleman, Hummelstown, had formed no opinion. He had no conscientious scruples on capital punishment. Mr. Nisley became juror No. 5.
John Forney, farmer, Upper Paxton Township, had no opinion, but the defense challenged him.
B. W. Holtzman, teacher, Upper Paxton Township, had no opinion, nor had he conscientious scruples on capital punishment. He made the sixth juror.
George W. Simmons, gentleman, Harrisburg, had formed an opinion, but could give a verdict on the evidence alone. Challenged by defense.
Robert T. Beatty, clerk, Harrisburg, had not formed an opinion, neither had he scruples as to capital punishment, but he was stood aside for the present by the Commonwealth.
Charles E. Roumfort, baker, Harrisburg, had an opinion, but he could give a verdict on the evidence alone. He had no scruples against capital punishment. He became the seventh juror.
J. E. Allen, baker, Harrisburg, had not formed an opinion, nor had he conscientious scruples on the subject of capital punishment. He was accepted as the eighth juror.
Henry Shoop, carpenter, Harrisburg, had no opinion, but he could give a verdict on the evidence alone. Challenged by the defense.
Benjamin Booser, blacksmith, Londonderry Township, had no opinion in particular, but he fell victim to the defense’s peremptory challenge.
Jacob McCoy, miner, Lykens Township, had an opinion, but he could give a verdict on the evidence alone. He had no scruples as to capital punishment, and became the ninth juror.
Amos Fisler was called. J. Amos Fisler appeared. He was excused because he was summoned under the wrong name.
Charles E. Segelbaum, Harrisburg, had an opinion, and thought he could not give a verdict uninfluenced by that opinion. Challenged for cause and challenge sustained.
M. J. Stoner, merchant, Lower Swatara Township, had formed no opinion, nor had he conscientious scruples on the subject of capital punishment. Challenged by the Commonwealth.
David R. Elder, farmer, Swatara, had formed no opinion, but could give a verdict on the evidence alone. He had no conscientious scruples on the subject of capital punishment and became the tenth juror.
Francis O. Hummel, saddler, Hummelstown, had formed an opinion, and it was so strong that he could not decide on the evidence alone. He was excused.
Allen Swab, salesman, Millersburg, had no opinion, but he was challenged by the defense.
George Shope, Miller, Middle Paxton Township, had no opinion. He had no conscientious scruples on capital punishment, and became the eleventh juror.
Jacob Roop, blacksmith, Lower Swatara Township, had an opinion, but he could decide according to the evidence. He was challenged by the defense.
J. E. Rutter, summoned as a teacher from Lykens Township, turned out to be a resident of Northumberland County, and was excused.
George W. Fox, storekeeper, West Hanover Township, had formed an opinion, but could render a verdict on the evidence alone. He was challenged by the defense.
David Neagley, farmer, Upper Paxton Township, had not formed an opinion, neither had he conscientious scrupled on the subject of capital punishment. He was accepted as the twelfth and last juror.
The jurors were then sworn separately to well and truly decide between the Commonwealth and Henry Romberger, the prisoner at the bar.
The Commonwealth’s case was then opened by ex-District Attorney Hollinger. He briefly outlined the evidence the Commonwealth was expected to produce, and on that he said the jury, inquiring on their oaths, must decide the prisoner’s fate.
[Here our report for the day closed].
_________________________________
News articles from Newspapers.com.
Corrections and additional information should be added as comments to this post.