St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-05-13
NO HOPE is LEFT Her.
Madeline Frelinghuysen Must
Serve Her Prison
Term.
The Supreme Court Refuses a
Writ Of Error for
Her.
Suit for a Slugging Received
by a Passenger on a
Train.
Participants in the West St.
Paul Fracas Under
Arrest.

Madeline FreylinghuySen must take
her medicine as prescribed by the dis
trict court Of Ramsey county. So said
the supreme court of Minnesota in a de-
cision filed yesterday affirming the
Judgment of the lower court. 1t will be
remembered that this woman was con-
victed few weeks ago on the charge
of concealing stolen goods. after hard
fought and lengthy trial in the district
court. and sentenced to term IN Still
water. The syllabus covers the points
relied upon by the defendants attor-
neys in their efforts to secure new
trial. 1t is as follows:
State of Minnesota. respondent, VS. Made
line Freylinghuysen, appellant. Judgment
affirmed COLLINS. j.
First-Upon the trial of defendant
for the crime of receiving stolen
property, a person was called as Juror
who knew that the accused WAS the
keeper of a br0thel. In response to 3
question, the juror answered upon his
YUire dire that his knowledge of defend
ants occupation had not preiudlcei him
against her ana that he WAS absolutely
impartial as TO the pending charge. De-
fendantS counsel then asked the queS-
ton: that if upon the trial her business
should be shown, and the evidence in
the case was such. as to leave in the
jurors mind q reasonable doubt
as to her guilt, would he be
able to give her the benefit of such
doubt? The court sustained an ObJec-
ton to this question. Held, that the
ruling was not erroneous.
SecOnd-When counsel in their argu-
ments TO the jury make remarks which
are foreign to the case, are I'M warranted
by the testimony and are calculated TO
prejudice o party in the minds OF the
jurors, the attention of the court should
be called to the Objectionable language
and a ruling obtained. This may be
done at the time the words are used or
when the jury is charged upon the law
applicable to the pending issues. An
exception to the remarks of counsel
simply is insufficient to raise the Ques-
ton on appeal.
j. c. Woodland, respondent, vs. The Griffiths-
Marshall Grain Commission Company.
Order affirmed. COLLINS, j.
A promise in writing to accept bill
of exchange, made within reasonable
time before it is drawn, will amount to
an acceptance in favor of a person to
whom the promise is communicated,
and who also takes the bill for valua-
bic consideration Oh the faith and credit
of the promise 1t is not essential that
the written promise to accept be shown
or exhibited to a person who takes the
bill relying upon its existence. But if
he chooses to act without personally ac-
cepting the promise III writing, he is
held to have such information as he
would have acquired by reading the
same.
Robert Stewart, respondent, vs. The st. Paul.
Minneapolis Il Manitoba Railway Com
pany, appellant. Order affirmed.
COLLINS, j.
Testimony in the case examined and
held sufficient to warrant the verdict.
Robert Stewart, respondent. vs. The st. Paul,
Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Com
pany, appellant. Order affirmed.
COLLINS, J.
Testimony in the case examined and
held sufficient to warrant the verdict.
The supreme court routine yesterday
was follows: William z. Todd, ap-
pelIant, VS.. O. A. Rustad. county au-
ditor, ct al, respondents; argued and
submitted. Charles n. Smith. appel
liant, VS.. Anne Roberts ct al, respond
ents; argued by appellant, submitted
by respondents on briefs. Gilbert A.
Ellegard, respondent, vs.. NelS Ackland,
appellant; argued by respondent, sub
mitted by appellant. Angelina Good
win ct al, appellants. VS.. F. Kunun ct
al, respondents; argued and submitted.