St. Paul daily globe., 1885-07-12
AGAINST CANTIENY.
Such is the Decision Of the Supreme
Court Judges.

Court Judges.
The supreme court judges refused to
grant the motion for a new trial in the case
of Antony Cantieny for the murder of
Robert Laughlin, and as stated in the
GLOBE, the former was arrested in accord
ance with the decision. The judges com
pleted their work in the case Friday, and
the decision was filed at 9o'clock that even
ing by Clerk Nichols on a telegram from
Attorney General Hahn in Minneapolis, the
precaution being taken to keep everything
quiet until Cantieny had been placed be-
hind the bars. The history of the case is
familiar and need not be recited again. The
sentence of the district court judges was
to seven years in state prison. A motion for
a new trial was taken into the supreme court
the prisoner meantime being released on
bail. The chief grounds for the new trial
set up by the defense were that the state
produced in evidence the ordinance of the
city defining in part the offenses of which
arrest may be made, and that the ordinance
was defective; that the verdict was exces-
Sive, that the Instructions to the jury were
prejudicial and that new evidence had been
secured as to the condition of Laughlin at
the time of the shooting. The supreme
courts decision is of considerable length,
each point being dwelt on in detail, and
authorities cited Oh these rulings. The
history of the shooting of Policeman Laugh
lin on North Washington avenue in Mime
apolis is conciSely stated and
then numerous ones of the six
teen or eighteen grounds of the petition
for new trial, argued before the district
judges. are gone over and carefully ana
iyhod; tho he; law IN the case Quoted. the opin-
ion OF the supreme court expressed and au-
thorities cited. One of the chief issues
a new trial was that the verdict
WAS NOT JUSTIFIED
by the evidence. The supreme conrt SAYS
the evidence does justify the verdict; it
makes no difference whether the arrest by
Laughlin is regarded as unauthorized and
Illegal, or the lawful exercise of police au-
fhority. EVENT. the arrest We're illegal.
Cantieny had no right to kill the officer.
No man has right to kill another unless
he is in the expectation of some great bodily
harm or other felony, and there is evidence
to give good grounds for this expectation,
and though an attempted unlawful arrest
may be resisted by means not greatly dis
proportionate to the injury threatened,
there is no evidence to show that Cantieny
was in this position. Cantieny was not
liable to any.danger other than that of ar
rest, and the killing was therefore dispro-
portiOnate to the danger, and by the law
he should have submitted As to
the claim that the case should
not be classed as manslaughter of the sec
Ond degree, the judges say that in some DOS
sible views of the case the defendant
might have been found guilty of higher
degree of homicide, but under the evidence
and the testimony of Cantieny himself was
that he did shoot, Though without taking
aim," the case cannot be classed as third
degree manslaughter. AS an evidence of
the liability of Cantieny to arrest, the state
introduced an ordinance of the city Of
Minneapolis, defining certain misdemeanors
for which arrests may be made. The de-
fense claimed this ordinance did not meet
the requirements of the city charter. in that
every subject which it included. such as
''disorderly, ;" drunkenness, noise. etc.
was not mentioned in its titles, and that it
covered more than one subject by including
a section providing for taxation of costs of
suit. The court held that the title of the
ordinance was sufficiently explicit TO pro-
claim its general character, and that if in
valid by reason of including two subjects.
it was invalid only as to the taxation of
costs, and could not affect the verdict As
this was submitted in rebuttal by the state.
it was competent for the district court
judges to allow it to go before the Jury as
evidence. 1t was further claimed that the
officer had no right to make the
ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT.
and, therefore, that the defendant was JUS
titled in resisting arrest. The supreme
court held that, as the acts of Cantieny on
the street that night were within the mean
ing of the ordinance, they constituted a
public offense, and that the police were, by
the charter of the city and the statute of
the state, authorized in making the arrest
for public offense," and they define Of
fenSe as "a breach of the laws established
for the protection of the public" and in
cludeS all such violations of municipal or
dinances as are punishable by fine and i'm
priSonment. Consequently the instruction
of the district judges was correct. Laugh
Inns statement, made on the day of his
death, and knowing that he could not live.
is competent as evidence before the iury.
AS to the fresh evidence, the affidavit of
Strathdee, that Laughlin was intoxicated
after the shooting, the judges saw this is
not additional evidence but simply cumula-
tive, and is not very satisfactory, as il is
proven that intoXicants were administered
to Laughlin immoderately after he was
shot. Aside from all this, new trial
ought not to be granted on these afidavits.
Cantieny and his companion would have
had ample opportunity to have known if
Laughlin were intoxicated, and so would
other witnesses, and yet no attempt was
made to show such fact. This alone is
sufficient for the refusal of the motion.
AFATAL RUNAWAY.