Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-04-21
MINIS SENTENCE.

The Supreme Court Modifies Its TERMS
Reference to Payment Of the Fine Inn
posed.
The supreme court yesterday filed two de-
cisions in the case of Charles r. Minis, de-
faulting treasurer of Mcleod county, now
serving out his sentence in the States prison
at saltwater. Minis, it will be remembered,
was convicted upon two indictments, one charg-
ing him with the embezzlement of $14 ,614.03
of county funds, and the other of the embez-
element of $4.706.44 of State moneys. Upon
both these indictments he was found guilty by
the district court of Mcleod county, Hon.
John L. Macdonald, Judge, and upon the first
sentenced to hard labor In the States prison
for three years, to pay foe double the amount
of his embezziement, 500 228. 06, and to stand
convicted in prison until the fine is paid. The
sentence upon the second indictment was one
year in prison, fine of S9,412.8S, and to stand
convicted in prison until the fine was paid.
Upon the rendering of this sentence motion
was made for new trial, which was denied,
whereupOn an appeal was taken to the supreme
court, which sustained the action of the court
below, upon which the sentence against Minis
was carried into effect by his incarceration.
His case was then brought before the supreme
court again upon writs of error, the complaint
setting forth that the fines imposed were abb
trary, the sentences cumulative, and
also illegal in the case of
the second Indictment in that
the sentence was made to commence at future
day, i. e., upon the expiration of bis sentence
d pom the first indictment. The court in its
findings sets aside all the points of error, ex-
cept that portion requiring confinement of
Minis until the fines imposed are paid. Below
are the syllabi of the two opinions:
Charles R. Minis, plaintiff in error, VS.. the
State of Minnesota, defendant in error.
Syllabus-Where in criminal case there has
been heard in this court, on the merits. an APP
peal from an order denying new trial upon
subsequent writ of error upon the Judgment.
no error prior to the order denying the trial can
be considered.
Upon writ of error or appeal from a judg-
ment I'M criminal case this court may, in
stead of reversing or affirming. modify the
Judgment so as to correct any errors of the
court below in ordering or entering it.
Upon a conviction under sections So ana 81,
Oh. 95, general statutes 1878, for embezzling
public moneys, the amount embezzled being
ga Ga 03, fine of S29, 228. 06 is not excessive
Upon conviction under those sections the
crurt has no power to sentence the defendant
to stand committed in prison until the fine i'm
posed is paid.
Section 5, Oh. 11S, general statutes 1878, in
regard to Furnishing by imprisonment, provid-
ing that whenever practicable the term of
imprisonment shall be So fixed that it will ex.
pire between the FIRST day of April and the first
day of November is only directory.
Judgment modified. GILFn1LAN, O. j.
Charles r. Minis, plaintiff in error, VS.. The
State of Minnesota, defendant IN error.
Syllabus-When person has been convicted
upon several indictments for several similar
but distinct offenses, the court may sentence
him to the full extent allowed by law for such
offense, upon each conviction, and 1t is not a
case of cumulative sentences.
The time of imprisonment imposed by the
sentence upon one conviction may be made to
commence at the expiration of the time i'm
yoaed nv a pravioua sentancc