Wait — Who Did What, Now? (A Horse Thief Story)

At least I think it's a horse thief story. I've read through the Gazette's accounts of this incident several times, and I'm still not sure exactly what happened.

Whatever it was, it happened in August 1902. The parties involved were two Ross Township farmers whose land lay south of Ainsworth — George Young and Chester Guernsey, Jr., who was known as Chet — and George Beemer, described as "a farm laborer and somewhat of a horse doctor."

Toward mid-August, Beemer bought a horse from Chet, who allowed him to take the animal after making only a small down payment on the full price. On August 15, Beemer happened to cross paths with George Young, who knew nothing about the horse sale, but liked Beemer's new horse so much that he was willing to trade his own for it and give Beemer $10 on top, which Beemer was happy to accept.

Beemer then went to Hobart, and the last anyone saw of him, he was heading west out of town.

Somehow word got back to Chet that Beemer, who still owed him money on the original horse deal, had skipped town. Chet went to George's place looking for his horse (and how he knew it was there is never explained). He apparently claimed the horse was stolen. George let him take the horse after depositing $15.

Then George came to Hobart looking for Beemer and his own horse. Together with Hobart's Marshal Busse, he spent all of August 16 looking around North and Calumet Townships for Beemer and the horse, without success. The Gazette ended its first report with this cryptic comment: "We understand that Mr. Young later learned that the Guernsey horse was not really stolen and now expects to secure his horse from Mr. Guernsey."

The next week's issue of the Gazette reported that Beemer had embellished his original crime by next stealing a buggy and harness from an unnamed victim. Marshal Busse, with the help of the Porter County sheriff, had finally run Beemer to ground and brought him back to Hobart for trial. The trial focused on the buggy (which was still missing) and the harness; no mention of any horses. Beemer's defense was that (a) he didn't steal anything and (b) he was drunk and not accountable for his actions. But before the trial could be completed, he or someone else paid for the buggy and harness, and Beemer was set free to return to his wife and children in Whiting. End of story, according to the Gazette.

Now, wait a minute. Aren't we still missing a horse? Did George get his horse back? Did Chet get his $15 back? Why wasn't Beemer charged with any of that? And where was the editor of the Gazette vacationing when these garbled accounts went to print?

Sources:
♦ "Excitement Over a Horse." Hobart Gazette 22 Aug. 1902.
♦ "Stealing Case Compromised." Hobart Gazette 29 Aug. 1902.