St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-05-27
CANTIENY,S CASE.

CANTIENY,S CASE.
The Supreme Court will Decide 1t
To-day.
The matter of the application of Attorney
General Hahn for vacation of the supreme
court order admitting Antony Cantieny
to bail was taken up at the opening of the
court yesterday morning, the appellant and
prisoner being present and seeming as I'M
concerned as any spectator.
The case was opened by Gen. Hahn, who
said that Judge Koon had declined, on ac-
count of the delicacy the case had assumed,
to make an affidavit of fact of the proceed
ings before him for the suspension of SEN
tence to obtain bail for Cantieny conducted
by j. G. Woolley, ESQ.,, but had in place
thereof referred him to the records OF his
court. These showed him that on March %
motion for new trial had been denied
and an application for delay of the eXecu-
ton of sentence for the purpose of admis-
sion to bail pending such appeal was also
denied.
On March 80, Justice Dickinson made an
order staying execution of Cantieny'S SEN
tence, leaving the district court of Henne-
pin to fix his bail, which the court records
of the latter, March 81, again show was de-
MED.
AN AFFIDAVIT
was then read from the clerk of the above
court stating that Judge Koon had denied
bail on both occasions by ruling that bail
was not proper in this case. An affidavit
from Frank F. Davis, attorney of Henne-
pin county, was also read, who stated that
he was present ON both the occasions re-
ferred to, and that on each Judge Koon
stated that he did not think this case bail
able, and in answer to MI. WOolley asking
why said it was mot proper case to ball. ;"
John S. Woolley in reply said that the
matter was not seriously different from
what had been stated. On both occasions
o asking for bail Judge KoOn had replied
that his mind was not clear on the subject.
The first time he (Woolley) went armed
with authorities to show the court had jur-
isdiction to give bail, and cited cases bear
ing on the same, but to these Judge Koon
had replied that the custom of that court
was not to admit sentenced criminals to
bail, and that there was no reason
why this man should be admitted to such
any more than forty others recently SEN
fenced by his court. In fact he understood
that his appeal was denied on the ground
Ol tll6 CuSbOlIlS Ol tlldb COlTG.
He then came to the supreme court for
stay of proceedings and then returned to
Judge KOon to fix the amount of bail as Or
dered and what should be the sureties,
which the latter refused to recognize. In
excuse for non-recognition Of the order he
said he did not construe it as giving him
authority to fix bail. He also said he had
not investigated the question but passed on
~, in, I, Sc II 11,A
see the right of courts trying to solve mat
tiers that were insolvable.
ANOTHER AFFIDAVIT.
The affidavit of Davis was true, but it
did not give all, The attorney, judge and
himself were present when the judge re-
peated he did not see why this man should
be bailed." And also when the judge
added that ''the supreme court could do as
it pleased" and that he was mot going to
inaugurate bail for crime here"
Nothing had been in his mind from
the beginning to the end of is (Wooll-
ey's) action in this case others than pure
conduct and freedom from duplicity or de-
ception, and he hoped that the interests of
his client might not suffer from any act of
his therein.
Gen. Hahn in closing said that Judge
Koon told him on both occasions !, above re-
ferred to- that Mr.. Wolley had discussed
the question to convince him that the
offense of his client was bailable. He had
meant to cast no question of veracity
against Mr.. Woolley in his argument before
the court on Monday. He felt the court
had granted the order without being fully
advised on the matter, in which neither the
county attorney of Hennepin or the at
torney general had been consulted. If the
supreme court under the circumstances
should fix the bail at 81, 200, hewould abide
by the order of the court.
THE FULL BENCH,
after a whispered consultation, retired for
ten minutes and returning into court Chief
Justice Gilfillan announced that the court
would not determine the case at this ses-
sion, but would decide it On Wednesday
morning, at which time the appellant was
ordered to be present to abide it's decision.
In case bail was accepted Mr.. .Woolley
asked that a hint at its amount be given,
that the prisoner be prepared, to which the
chief justice replied that it would be left. if
bail was granted, to the attorney general
and prisoners counsel to decide on the
proper amount. Mr.. Woolley then asked
the privilege of procuring affidavits to prove
his assertions made before the court in this
matter and was informed by the chief JUS
tice that none were wanted. The court,
said the chief justice, has no kind Of ques-
ton as to the integrity of the defendants
counsel in this matter, and discharges him
of anything but misrepresentation and mis-
take in the case. For the Misrepresentation
of the higher court of the facts in the court
below no one is to blame. The mistake of
Mr.. Woolley, he would add, very naturally
grew out of what occurred in the lower
court.