Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-01-16

VIM. Crooks, Henry Habighorst.
Frank B. Clark,
THE CHARGE TO THE JURY
Governor Marshall was appointed foreman of
the jury.
The court then proceeded to charge the jury.
He stated that the provisions of the statutes
were SO full and explicit, that scarcely anything
need be added by the court, except in some
special case. The jury were informed that
sixteen of their body constituted a quo
rum to transact business, and
twelve would have to conclude
upon an Indictment before it could be present.
ed into court. He also stated that the law
provided that clerk should be appointed to
keep the minutes of their proceedings. The
law made it obligatory to read to the iury GER
tain portions of the statutes defining their
duties and obligations. The usual sections
| of the statute were then read.
The court resumed, directing the attention
OF the jury to the provisions of the statute.
| They could see that they entrusted with
high and important duties. It was made OBJ
ligatory upon them to take cognizance of all
matters pertaining to the public morals, and
for the suppression of crime. They were to
Toxic action in matters affecting the public in
terest and morals, and were not circumscribed
by the few cases brought to their attention in
the usual way. But their action was directed
by law and should not arise from any current
to inquire into the conduct of all public Off
GERS. and they were permitted access to all
records to aid them in such investigation. The
court then alluded to their oath of secrecy. He
spoke impressively of the Importance Of the
secrecy eff their deliberations, and they had
taken an oath to preserve it. He charged them
to keep it inviolate, and stated the tendency
was too much to its violation.
THE FRANK-BURKE CASE.
At this juncture of the charge the court
brought every one to the closest attention by
the following remarks:
II think it would not be miss for me to call your
attention, gentlemen, to a matter that has excited
the public within the last few days. refer to the
issue of warrant by the Governor of this State
upon requisition from the executive authority of
the State of Illinois.
The constitution of the United States provides
that persons charged with crime in any State fleeing
from justice shall be delivered up the authority Of
any State in which they may be found npon proper
the offense Under this provision of the constitu-
tlon an act of Congress passed at very early date
providing for demand to be made by the executive
authority for the person charged with crime who
had fed, accompanied by a copy of the indictment
or of the affidavit, before magistrate, charging
him with crime; that the Governor of the State upon
whom the demand is made, should cause the person
to be arrested and delivered to the agent of the State
by whose authority the demand is made. We have
III our own State provision of statute which pro-
woes mat when demand is made upon the
Governor of the State under this act of Congress,
gated by the attorney general and if proper case
is made out cause warrant to be issued authorizing
the agent appearing for the executive authority Of
the State to arrest him and take him to that State
II You will see, gentlemen, from these provisions,
is the duty of the executive of the State upon
proper case being made, to issue his warrant.
END the party making the arrest in order to avoid
the delay expense and difficulties of appearing in
obedience t to writ Of habeas corpus secretly abb
ducts the person without giving him opportunity to
consult his friends counsel. This proceeding is
reprehensible The excuse made for it is that they
are liable to be put at great expense and difficulty
and that the prisoner often escapes. It is better
that the party should be put to expense and to delay
neer even that criminal should sometimes escape
ed to protect the rights and liberties of the Citizen
should be invaded or disregarded.
1t IS claimed in this case, as understand, and
only know from what in the public prints, that
IN TINS case there has been such an abduction as
renders the party liable to the charge of kidnapping.
Now the ofense of kidnapping is defined in orr
statute follows: The court here read to the i,1ry
the provision of the statute of tho State defining the
offense and Prescribing the punishment of kidnap-
You will perceive, gentlemen, from this statute,
that IN order to constitute the oense the party must
be imprisoned without lawful authority. It must be
done Wilfully or malicously and with wrongful in
tent.
With reference to these matters it will be the duty
OF the grand jury OF course, to proceed calmly and
without excitement. This provision of the constitl1-
ton to which have alluded is necessary one under
our form and system of government, and is neces-
rights OF the whole community, that persons should
not be allowed to elude the demands of justice by
heeng from one State to another 1t is also the duty
OF the authorities of this State see that the rights
of its citizens are properly protected and that
they have their hearing before courts Of justice in
proper cases. am satisfied from the character of
TINS grand jury that they will consider this matter if
should come before them, calmly, impartialy and
intelligently."
The court further directed the jury's atten-
I non to certain crimes and misdemeanors which
they are called upon by law to examine; selling
liquor without license, trespassing on public
lands, etc. The court concluded by stating
the special and prepared cases would
be submitted to the iury and
dismissed 81, the august body to begin its duties.
The court then took up the case entitled The
First Division of the st. Paul & Pacific r. R.
VS.. Edmund Rice ct al. Motion for continu-
| ance.
| (Ihis involves the mortgage bonds, and is
somewhat similar to the case in the United
States circuit court, a full report of which was
given IN the GLOBE at the time.)
The court heard the argument aud concluded
| to hold it over until to-day.
In the case of John Mahoney vs.. J. A. Nc
| Lean ct al. the plaintiff made motion to mod
ify the courts order, and defendant moved to
have the case striker off the calendar The ar
gument was heard. The plaintiff was allowed
ten days to answer, and the case set for trial
February z with leave for either party to move
for continuance.
The following jury cases were set for trial on
the following dates:
Feb. Z; 49, John Mahoney VS.. J. A. Mclean
ct al.
Feb. 10; II, Little & Berrisfords vs.. W. W,
Erwin.
At IL o'clock the court adjourned to meet at
|. 10 o'clock A. M. to-day.
The Grand Jury.
After receiving the charge (publishe else
where) the grand jury departed to begin the