Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1854-06-06


push him out of doors.
Now what was the defense offered to this direct
and positive proof Of guilt? Why, in the first
place, that the defendant was drunk-evidence OF
which was very properly ruled out by the court
though not excluded in the first instance; so that
the defendant had the benefit of it before the iury
Secondly, that Dixon had his hands on and
the cellar. And thirdly, that Dixon pushed the
defendent out of the door against tree!
The above facts offered in defence, were at
tempted to be established by youngster of color
who when he came upon the stand behaved in so
trifing manner while testifying, as to impress
every body present with disbelief of every part
of his evidence. This witness went further and
even stated that Dixon drew and snapped q pistol
twice at the defendant before the defendant shot
Now, on the cross-examination of this witness,
he stated that at the time the def't came up stairs
he, the witness, was in the back room-that when
Dixon pushed def't out of doors, witness was
standing in the front part Of the saloon, near the
door-that he had been drinking, and was "a lit
tie observation-disclosures frightened and ran back,
and in fact did not know whether Dixon drew q
pistol or not, or whether or not def't was pushed
against tree. Indeed he fully retracted every
thing that he had said upon the direct examina-
ton that seemed in any way material to the de-
fence. Now the only matters in the case that in
law would have amounted to a defence at all,
would have been the pushing of the def't against
the tree, and presenting and swapping pistol at
him.
As to the first, the statement as made bv the
def'ts witness as we have shown is contradictory,
for he admitted that he knew very little, if any
thing about it; and further two witnesses for the
prosecution whose testimony was unquestioned,
expressly and positively contradicted the state
ment.
The two witnesses for the prosecution are sup
W cto hot
In evidence. First, the tree in question, stands
on the out side of the sidewalk, above the door,
SO as to be about opposite the upper door post
(the terms upper and lower are used to indicate
the directions with reference to the street) the
outer door referred to, was a double or folding
door, and the lower part or shutter was the one
that was open at the time and through which
opening the defendant was pushed-the defendant
was pushed out in straight line at right angles
to the sidewalk and not in the direction of the
tree-he was not pushed with sufficient force to
shove him across and off the sidewalk, and fur
ther that he fired the pistol shot instantly after
being pushed out
AS to the other matter of Dixon swapping a
pistol at the deft, the falsehood of the story
SO prominent upon it that the defendants counsel
did not insist upon the evidence, before the Jury.
After the argument Of the cause by counsel for
the respective parties and the charge of the Judge
the jury, composed of twelve good and respon-
sible men OF the county, retired and Immediately
returned their verdict of ''guiltyn'
A Bill Of exceptions was filed on the ground
that the judge had excluded the evidence of the
defendant being drunk at the time of the assault
On account of such exceptions Judge Sherburne
refused to sentence the def't although he did not
believe that the exceptions were of any validity
whatever. After lapse Of over two months the
District Attorney was suddenly summoned to the
Capitol and informed by the court that it was 60
ing to sentence the defendant-which form was
gone through with we have been informed,
merely for the purpose of enabling the Governor
to pardon the offender-the lightest sentence that
could be imposed was accordingly pronounced and
the next day Louis Monroe walked out of iail
washed of all criminality by an executive pardon.
Now the public may sec more in this transaction
than those who participated in it even intended
should come to the public eye. The pardon was
promised even before the sentence was pronounc-
ed-before any motion for new trial had been
made and before the legal means of correcting
the hard ship if any existed had been exertcd.
So far as we can learn, the principal of the PC
titioners signed the petition for pardon, solely
on account of certain letter addressed to the
Governor and signed by Judge Sherburne. His
letter has already been published, and the public
can Judge Of its merits.
Although the case is one Of no great magnitude
in consideration Of the character of the parties,
yet the principle involved in its final disposal has
created considerablepublice excitement. Thcp
pie say let crime be punished-let the honest yer.
diets Of capable jurors be sustained, or if thoy
should err, let the parties aggricvcd apply for
new trials, and let new jurors correct the mistake.
This course will make honest, independent jurors
and will direct those concerned in procuring and
granting pardons to other means of attaining
their ends than the impeachment Of the verdict Of
a jury.