St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-01-22
MILL CITY MATTERS.
The Judge Refuses to Grant
Louis Murray Another
Chance for Liberty.
Arguments Of Counsel--The
PrisonepNot Much Affect
ed by the Decision.
The NoPmanna Fair a Great
Success--A Boycott
on Beer.
Excitement Over a Case Of
Small-Pox---VariouS
News Items.
MURRAY MUST GO.
The Effort TO Secure a New Trial
Signal Failure

The Effort TO Secure New Trial a
Signal Failure.
Lou Murray. who was convicted of the
crime of attempting to outrage Mary
Sylvester, and sentenced to serve ten
years at hard labor in the
state prison at Saltwater, was
brought into court yesterday afternoon,
to hear his counsel make an appeal for
new trial. At exactly $40 O'clock j.
II. Wendell, of Buffalo, Mimi, one of
the counsel for the defendant. COM
menced his argument. He said the
grounds for Il new trial were, first, that
the evidence did not Justify the verdict;
second, that the court erred in its charge
to the jury, and thereby miSled the Jury
10 the prejudice of the defendant; third,
errors in law which were excepted to by
the defense at the time of the trial;
fourth, on account of the sentence be-
ing excessive and not warranted by law.
The court said he was satisfied that the
evidence fully justified the verdict, and
that as the counsel seemed fully salts
fed with his charge to the jury at the
time of the trial, and as no excep-
tons were taken to it at that
time, they could not now take excep-
ton Ia il, as the ground for new trial
of the case, but that he would like to
hear what part of the charge he wished
to take exception to. Mr.. Wendall then
read the portion of the charge
he wished to refer to, when
the court called his attention to the fact
that line had been omitted by the re-
porter in writing ont the minutes, as
all this part referred to had been read
by him to the jury from
Sackett's Instructions to Juries.
MIR. Wendell then made quite an argu-
ment on the matter of the sentences
being excessive and not warranted by
law. and said, according to the indict-
ment, the charge was simply an
assault, for which the maxi
mum penalty, according to the
penal code, was but five years imprisOn-
ment. He said that the county attor-
ney had drawn the indictment for an
assault. and had then added to it con-
clusion of law that the defendant
had attempted to commit rape.
Mr.. Davis then said: ~ have not been
served with notice of what were the
grounds for this application for a new
trial, but since have been sitting here
have found out that the grounds for
this appeal are errors of law
for which no exceptions were
taken and therefore cannot be used for
that purpose, and on the ground that
Ilt utltHUdilI Has l1OG Uttfl tTleu lot TIE
offense committed, but for another.
Now, regard this indictment as very
good one for attempted rape, and
j wish to call the counsel'S attention to
the definition of an attempt to commit
crime as laid down in the penal code,
which is as follows: An act done with
intent to commit crime, and tending
but failing to effect its COM
mission, is an attempt to COM
nit that crime.'" He then read the
definition for an assault to show the diff
ference. He then said: 81 cannot see
how any one can say this sentence is ex-
ceSsive, for the maximum limit is
fifteen years, and the court in its
discretion fixed it at only ten years.
The court then said that he was salts
fed that there was nothing in the charge
but what was authorized by law
and the other grounds were not
well taken, and that he would
therefore override the motion for new
trial and order the defendant COM
mitted. Murray did not seem to be sur
prised at the result of the appeal but
his counsel was disappointed.