St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-01-22
SUPREME COURT MATTERS.
Compounded Crime by With
holding Evidence.


Three decisions were filed yesterday
in the supreme court:
State of Minnesota, respondent, vs..
Michael Qunlan and Nathaniel W..
King, appellants.
Michael Quinlan and Nathaniel ".
King were indicted by the grand jury
of Hennepin county for compromising
crime by taking from G0tlieb Beis-
winger 500 to withhold evidence
of selling liquor without IL
cense Sept. IL, 1887. In the opin-
ion, Judge Collins states: lit was
assumed by both parties upon the argu-
ment of this case that the Of1ense
charged is that of compromising a crime
(Which is analogous to the common law
Offense of compromising felony, when
in fact defendants are accused OF
another and distinct aforementioned
in the same section of the cOde-that of
taking money to withhold evidence OF
crime. Upon the appeal two
points are made by the defendentS,
first, that they were convicted upon the
uncOrroborated testimony of an accom-
plice. the Gotlieb Reisswinger mem
toned in the indictment, who alone tes-
tilted to the main fact and was f1atly
contradicteu uy each of the other wit
neSses, some of whom were called by
the state; second, fatal variance IN
two essentials between the allegations
of the Indictment and the proof.
SyllabuS-ln prosecution for taking
money upon an agreement to withhold
evidence of crime. under section III
of the Penal Code, it is not necessary
that the testimony of the person who
makes the agreement with and pays the
al hA n
grated. Such person is not all accom-
plice within the meaning of sec. 104,
chan. "a, General StGtutes 1878. In this
case, the Offense concerning which it
was alleged 4he corrupt agreement had
been made was described in the in
dictment as having been committed by
Christ Snyder and Fred V0ngard i'll
selling spirituous liquors, to wit: One
glass of whisky, without first having OBJ
tanned a license therefor. The proof
was that one G0ttleib BeiSswinger, who
was also known as Christ Snyder, and
one William Bungard had sold one glass
of beer, having no license for such sale.
Held, that in respect to the names of
these parties, and in regard to the kind
of liquor sold, there was fatal vari-
ance between the pleading and the
proof.
State of Minnesota, respondent, vs..
Andrew Larson, appellant.
Defendant was charged with selling
LIQUOR to an habitual drunkard. Upon
trial before city justice he was con-
victed and sentenced to pay fine of S25
and the costs of prosecution taxed at
S10506. He appealed to the district
court, which certified to the supreme
court, by virtue of the provisions of
sec. II. chap. III, G. S 1878, the objec-
ton made by the defendant and over
ruled in both courts.
Judge Collins is responsible for the
syllabus, which reads:
Syllabus-The costs Of prosecution,
which follow conviction in some Grim
inal causes, are no part of the fine men-
toned in sec. of art. of the constitu-
ton, which prescribes the jurisdiction
of justices of the peace. And said JUS
tees are not deprived of the power to
hear and finally determine criminal
cases arising under the various laws of
the state regulating the sale of lntoXi-
eating liquors Gf otherwise possessing
jurisdiction) by the fact that person
convicted of such violation is Ivy statute
unable to procure license for the sale
of such liquors for at least twelve
months after.