Part 6 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, 24 October 1881:
HENRY ROMBERGER
What He Says in Reference to Frank’s Statements – There is Not a Word of Truth It All, Except Where He Tells about Going into the Yard to have a Talk
A TELEGRAPH reporter, in presence of Prison Keeper Duey, had an interview with Henry Romberger this morning at the door of his cell.
The prisoner was in his usual quiet, serious mood, entirely self-possessed, and as usual gazing at his interlocutor with sad eyes, as if pleading for assistance of some kind.
Reporter – I left you a TELEGRAPH, Saturday evening, Henry, with Frank’s statement in it. What do you think of it?
Henry – There is not a word of truth in all he says. When we met, Saturday, November 13, 1880, I had ten dollars, more or less. I did not ask him for a cent. We entered the yard of which he speaks to consult about going to Troutman’s the next night. All the arrangements were made then. I was to hire the carriage at Tower City, which I did, and paid $1.50 for it. I bought a pair of pants that Saturday and a pair of gum shoes. These same shoes (pointing to a pair in his cell).
Reporter – How about the robbery of the dentist in Tremont?
Henry – It’s all a story – there is not a word of truth in the whole narrative. I have no adopted sister nine years old – we have no little girl that old in our family. My youngest sister is over fourteen years old, and my mother never took her to Tremont to have a tooth fixed. I doubt if my mother was ever in a dentist’s office in Tremont, and I never told Frank that she had been, or that we should rob a dentist there. Why did he not prove all these things on his trial, because if he had done so he would not be in jail today.
Reporter – Henry, who cried after the shooting was done, and Mrs. Troutman was in the yard, “there goes the the old woman, let us go after her?”
Henry – That is a mistake. After the shooting, Frank came to the woods into which I had ran, and he talked out loudly, “there goes the old lady, now we must get out of this.” Neither of us went back to the house after the shooting. The old lady misunderstood Frank. We left by the same road that we came. I left Frank out of the carriage where Mr. Martin said he saw him get out. Mr. Martin told the truth.
Reporter – The you say Frank is wrong in what he says.
Henry – I do. The only true thing he said was about going into the gate to get into the yard, when instead of me asking to borrow money, we talked about going to Troutman’s.
This ended the interview, and Mr. Duey let the reporter out of jail.
________________________________
From the Harrisburg Telegraph, 24 October 1881:
Judge Pearson has ordered Prison Keeper Duey to admit no person to see Frank Romberger and Henry Romberger except ministers. Even the parents of the prisoners cannot see them without the judge’s sanction.
______________________________
From the Harrisburg Telegraph, 26 October 1881:
DEATH
THE DREAD SENTENCE PRONOUNCED
Henry Romberger and Frank Romberge to be Executed for the Murder of Daniel Troutman – Motions for a New Trial Overruled – The Men Plead Not Guilty
It was generally understood that Henry Romberger and Frank Romberger, would be sentenced to-day. Accordingly, the court room has had more than the usual attractions for spectators. On the assembling of court at 2 o’clock this afternoon a large crowd was in attendance, filling all the seats allotted to lookers on, and occupying the aisles, and even encroaching upon the space set aside for attorneys. The district attorney had received a telegram from Mr. Durbin, Frank’s counsel, saying: “Argument without preparation would be a mockery. Several weeks to prepare.” Mr. McCarrell laid the telegram before the court; and then ordered the prisoners to be brought from the jail.
At 2:17 Henry Romberger and Frank Romberger entered the court room in charge of policemen. Judge Henderson then informed counsel that this was the day fixed for hearing arguments for a new trial in the cases of Henry Romberger and Frank Romberger. Thereupon the district attorney said that he had received a telegram from Mr. Durbin saying that he had no time to prepare, as preparation would require several weeks. “While,” the district attorney said, “I do not wish to appear hasty, yet I must ask that argument proceed, because Mr. Durbin has had notice of the time of argument, and should have been present today.” After continuation, the court said there was no reason for delay, and argument must proceed notwithstanding the absence of Mr. Durbin.
Mr. Bowman, of counsel to Henry Romberger, then said that the degree of murder in the case of Henry should be reduced. Counsel said that the district attorney had laid great stress on the evidence of Mrs. Troutman, that when she was running for help she heard on the the men say: “There goes the old woman, we must go after her.” But the evidence of Henry on the trial of Frank showed that what the old lady heard was: “There goes the old lady, now we must get out of this. The difference in the two statements, counsel contended, would work a reduction in the degree of guilt. As the Commonwealth made Henry its witness it should accept his statements.
District Attorney McCarrell said he had no disposition to argue the case, because two juries had found Henry guilty of murder in the first degree, and nothing had arisen since the second verdict to lead him to think there was any necessity for him to say anything in opposition to the motion of Frank’s counsel.
Mr. Muench closed the argument on motion. His effort was directed solely to getting a new trial for the purpose of having the degree of guilt reduced from first to second. Counsel thought enough evidence had been presented to create a doubt as to Henry’s guilt of murder in the first degree, and that doubt should have brought a verdict of murder in the second degree.
During the argument both Henry and Frank maintained the same stolid indifference that characterized their bearing during the trial. Neither moved nor spoke. On the contrary they displayed less concern in their fate than any one in the court room. At the conclusion of Mr. Muench’s remarks, Judge Pearson said he did not try the case the last time, but he had waded through the evidence the first time. Then a new trial had been granted on an almost imaginary doubt as to the correctness of the charge. The evidence seemed perfectly clear and positive, but for himself he believed Mrs. Troutman was correct when she said one of the men cried out, “there goes the old woman, we must go after her.” Judge Pearson then reviewed the evidence as to the pleas that the Rombergers were running away when Troutman fired his gun at them qand declared his conviction that thre was nothing to show they had given up their design to rob when they ran out of the house. They had no intention of felling until after Troutman was killed. The judge concluded his remarks by expressing the opinion that the verdict was right and proper and then formally overruled the motion for a new trial.
Judge Henderson added his concurrence in Judge Pearson’s remarks, and said he apprehended that the motion for a new trial now had been made only as a matter of form. He then tookup0 the reasons for a new trial, and answering them seriatim, overruled the motions.
District Attorney McCarrell then moved for judgment on the verdicts.
Henry and Frank were then directed to stand up.
“Have you, Henry Romberger, anything to say why sentence, which is death, should not be pronounced upon you?” asked Judge Henderson.
“I am not guilty of the crime of murder,” said Henry in a subdued, but firm and clear tone of voice.
“Have you, Frank Romberger, anything to say why sentence, which is death, should not be pronounced upon you?” asked Judge Henderson.
“I am an innocent man. Henry knows he implicated an innocent man, and therefore I hope no sentence will be passed,” was Frank’s answer. He spoke apparently with effort, and there was a tremor in his voice that contrasted strangely with his steady and almost defiant bearing. Without further question Judge Henderson passed sentence as follows:
“It is not necessary, and I have no desire, to review the evidence in this case. The court is satisfied with the verdict of the jury. Henry Romberger, has testified to the main facts involved, which point unmistakably to his connection with Frank Romberger in the attempt to rob Daniel Troutman. In this attempt Daniel Troutman was killed. This accomplice, by his own confession, is corroborated by every material fact and circumstance established upon the trial.
“We do not think that either of you went there with the intention fixed in your mind to murder. But we do not doubt that both of you had planned and arranged for the robbery of Daniel Troutman; and that in order to accomplish your purpose you went prepared for the worst. One, if not both, was armed. The intention to take life was only formed and made manifest when resistance was offered. The money of the victim was demanded with the revolver presented at his breast. What followed was clearly detailed by Mrs. Troutman and substantially confirmed by Henry Romberger.
“We have no doubt of the guilt of both. The assumed indifference of Frank Romberger does not impress us as consistent with innocence. It is not the armor of conscious innocence. It may be the bravado of guilt. No innocent man entrenches himself behind an impudent state of defiance.
“In all kindness and charity, and sympathizing with you in your unfortunate situation, we admonish you to put your trust in a higher power – in Him who is ever merciful, willing and able to forgive and save. With Him all things are possible. Here you may be without hope.
“Henry Romberger, the sentence of the law as pronounced by the court is, that you Henry Romberger, be taken by the sheriff of the county to the prison whence you came, and thence to the place of execution within the jail yard of the county of Dauphin, and that you be there hanged by the neck until you are dead, and may God have mercy on your soul.
“Frank Romberger, the sentence of the law as pronounced by the court is that you Frank Romberger, be taken by the sheriff of the county to the prison whence you came, and thence to the place of execution within the jail yard of the county of Dauphin, and that you be there hanged by the neck until you are dead, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
As the word “soul” died away on the judge’s lips, Frank hurriedly spoke out: “Thanks, but I am an innocent man.”
During the pronouncement of the sentences Henry apparently was unmoved, but those who were close to him could notice that his heart was palpitating violently and that his breath came short and quick, showing that a tremendous will power was being exerted to control his nervous organization. Frank stood unmoved, never taking his eyes off Judge Henderson. As the first words of the charge were delivered, the blood shot to his cheeks, giving them a flushed appearance, but this soon died away, and when the sentence was finished he was as pale and as calm as at any time previous to and during his trial. His demeanor throughout proved him to be the man of iron nerve and hardened heart described by District Attorney McCarrell in his closing argument to the jury.
_________________________________
News articles from Newspapers.com.
Corrections and additional information should be added as comments to this post.