The Sterling Daily Gazette, May 8, 1920, page 1, column 1

Suffering from a guilty conscience, causing him much discomfort, Raymond Hurless returned to Sterling Saturday [0508/1920] morning and threw himself upon the mercy of the court after roaming about the country for nearly a week to avoid arrest on a charge of stealing chickens, he being implicated with Roy W. Barker in the looting of the hen roost of Mrs. Nellie Schroeder of near Sterling on last Saturday night. Hurless was arraigned before Judge Weaver Saturday morning where he told a straightforeward story of the stealing of the chickens, the sale of them to the Reitzell poultry house, the cashing of the checks in payment for them by Roy Barker and of the subsequent division of the proceeds. Hurless also admitted that another hen roost was robbed on the same night by Barker and himself. After hearing the young man’s story, Judge Weaver bound him over to the action of the October grand jury, fixing the bail at $1,500.

According to Hurless’ story, he was approached by Barker on last Saturday afternoon with a proposition to steal some chickens at the home of Mrs. Nellie Schroeder. Agreeing to the proposal, Hurless procured the automobile of his father and in company with Barker went to the Schroeder farm and stole a coop of chickens. From the Schroeder home they went to another nearby farm where another lot of chickens were appropriated. Returning to Sterling, the two coops of chickens, Hurless states, were placed in the Reitzell barn, which Barker had rented for the keeping of his horses and wagon. On Monday morning, Hurless says, he employed Arthur Burrows to drive to the barn and haul the two coops of chickens to the Reitzell poultry house, where they were disposed of, receiving three checks. One of these checks, amounting to about $6, he said, was made payable to him. This check he admits cashing himself. The other two checks, for $78.44 and $1.70, according to Hurless, were made out to Fred Barker. He states that the reason he failed to have them issued to Barker’s correct name—Roy—was due to the fact that he really did not know his first name and thought “Fred” would serve the prupose. The two checks, totaling $80.14, were turned over to Barker, who in turn cashed them at the bank, Hurless states, and a divvy, 50-50, was made.

On Monday evening Hurless says that he was approached by Barker and informed that the police were wise and that he had better get out of town. Barker gave him $5, he said, and told him to “beat it.” “I left on the 8:18 train and went to Ames, Iowa.” Hurless states. “that night my conscience began to hurt me and I couldn’t sleep. The whole thing has been on my mind constantly and I don’t know when I ever felt so uneasy. I finally decided to unburden myself and return to Sterling and fix things up the best way I can. This is the first time I was ever in a scrape like this and it’s going to be the last. If I can fix everything with the people from whom the chickens were stolen and with the Reitzell poultry house I am willing to do it.” Hurless’ story is quite in contrast with the tale told by Barker in Judge Weaver’s court on last Tuesday when he so stoutly denied any knowledge of the theft of the chickens and of having anything to do with the money obtained from the sale of the fowls.