The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1857-11-07
District Court.

| HE UNITED STATEs vs.. FRANK X EIFER.
This case, which has excited considera-
BILE degree of interest in, this community, was
called up in the District Court on Tuesday
morning last. The forenoon, of that day af.
ter the empannclling of the jury, was con-
sumed by the counsel for the defense in ar
guing motion for the continuance of the suit
until the next term of the court, on the
ground of the absence of material witnesses
on the part of the defendant, This motion
Judge Nelson refused to grant, and the case
proceeded to trial. iu ..mal b. 80.
The afternoon of Tuesday and the whole
of the day Wednesday were occupied in the
examination of witnesses on the part of the
prosecution and for the defence, a large num-
Der on both sides being sworn. On the even
ing of the latter day, at the hour for adjourn
ing the court, the counsel for the defence an
nounced that be here rested the case.
On Thursday morning at the hour of the
court assembling, Mr.. BR1sBIN, on behalf of
Keifer, commenced his address to the Jury,
and occupied the floor in mastery speech of
four and half hours duration, during which
he was listened to with marked attention, by
not only the gentlemen in the jury box, but
by large auditory of spectators who we're
in attendance without the bar 1t was
speech replete with eloquence and legal acu-
men and reflected much credit upon the rep
utation Mr.. B. had already acquired as an ell
oquent advocate. He was followed on the
part of the United States by Mr.. Horn, the
gentleman associated with Mr.. Heard, the
Prosecuting Attorney, in the conduct of the
case on the part of the government. The
speech of Mr.. Horn was an able one, occu-
plying one hour and half in its delivery, in
which he summed up in complete manner
the evidence on the part of the prosecution.
At five o'clock in the evening the case was
given to the jury. After careful examina-
ton of the law and the evidence, the jury af-
ter deliberation lasting the whole night
yesterday morning, by their foreman, brought
in verdict that Frank Keller was guilty of
manslaughter in the fourth degree.
After the meeting of the Court in the af-
ternoon, the Judge passed the sentence pre-
scribed by our statutes for the crime of which
he had been ound guilty, viz: That the
prisoner pay fine of one thousand dollars,
and in default thereof stand committed until
paid. This was the lightest sentence that
the limits OF the statute allowed in the pre-
misses. Immediately after the passing of the
sentence the counsel for the defence an
nounced his desire to argue a motion for a
new trial, or for an arrest of the execution of
the sentence of the Court. Ten o'clock on
Monday morning next was set down by the
Judge as the time for hearing the motion.
UNITED STATES Is. CHARLES JOHNSON
This case came up yesterday morning for
trial, on charge of larceny preferred against
the defendant by one Ida Martin The pris-
oner having no counsel, the court assigned
Chas. T. Cotton, Esq, for the defence. L.
ID. Heard, Esq, appeared on the part of
the United States. The case occupied the
whole of the forenoon, and resulted in the
jury finding the prisoner guilty of stealing
sum of money in amount over one hundred
dollars. lie was sentenced to imprisonment
in the Territorial prison for the term of one
year.
The UNITED STATES vs. THOMAS DUNN
Action, assault, acith intent to kill, on Cooleu-
Our readers will remember this case, which
happened recently. Dunn was employed at
the Rotary Mill, for which Cooley was pri-
vate watchman. There had been some diff
Guilty between the defendant and Cooley, and
Dunn, arming himself went to the mill one
night, and while engaged in conversation
with Cooley, who was on watch, attempted
to stab him in the abdomen with heavy
dirk knife, but only succeeded in cutting him
in the thigh, through pocket book he car
ried.
The case was given to the jury about
o'clock, but we learn that owing to disa-
greement arising from doubt as to the
evidence necessary to sustain the charge of
Intent to kill,' the jury had not agreed on
verdict when we left court.