The prison mirror. [volume] (Stillwater, Minn.) 1887-1894, 1892-10-20

witness whose evidence could be taken unsup-
ported. At this time and perhaps as the most
interesting contribution to the history of an in
teresting case, comes this letter to Thomas New
lille, one of the men who claim to be unjustly de-
prved of liberty, by the judge who sentenced
them. Hon. Caleb Blodgett, justice of the superb
or court.
Thomas Neville-Dear Sir: On my return from
New York, where have been for a few days, I
find your letter of the Sd inst. Contrary to the
usual practice in such cases, 1 send you this re-
ply.
You seem to have a wrong notion as to my part
in the matter of your trial and conviction. 1t is
not, and was not, for me to say whether you are
guilty or not guilty. 1t was my duty to see that
you were tried legally, and it was the duty of the
jury to find whether you were or were not guilty.
1t often happens that juries acquit when think
there should be a convictions it sometimes hap
pens that they convict in cases where, on the
same evidence, 1 should acquit. 1t is true that
in cases of conviction / may set the verdict
aside and grant new trial, but it is also per-
fectly well settled rule of law that have no right
to set verdict aside for the reason merely that
1 should have found the other way. The people
of this state say that a jury of twelve men, COM
the ordinary affairs in which men are engaged,
are more likely to be right when they all say that
person is guilty than the one man who sits as
judge at the trial. 1t must be an extreme case
to justify Judge in setting aside verdict after
fair trial. he must be satisfied that for some reason
the jury did not give proper consideration to the
evidence; he must be able to say that it is clear
that there was not evidence in the case which
EoI
must stand, Notwithstanding he thinks the YER
dict should have been for acquttal.
Now, in your case I do not hesitate to say
that, upon the evidence at the trial, should
have found both you and Nowlin not guilty; but
you must admit that there was evidence which
justified the jury in cOnvcting. if they believed
it, The jury did believe it, and while should
have been better satisfied with verdict of not
guilty, could not merely for that reason set the
verdict aside without violating the oath which
took when became a Judge.
Let me say word about the motion made by
Mr.. Gale in your behalf for new trial on the
ground of newly discovered evidence. We had
hearing and if what is claimed about the hat had
turned out to be true-namely, that it fitted
Kelly and did not fit either you or NOwln-I
should have allowed the motion; but the evidence
SdllSly Ill W IIldC nldCCor. In
view of the character of Kelly think his testi-
mOny is wholly worthless, except so far as it is
cOrrObOrated by other evidence. said to Mr.
Gale that, as the case then stood, l must over
rule the motion, but as it was intimated that
some other evidence of Importance might be
found if time were given for that purpose, also
said that the matter might stand for counsel to
see if anything could be produced, and since
then, the time being in June, think, have
heard nothing from your counsel.
Ipresume l need not remind you that l have
no power to grant pardOns and that the governor
of the state has that power. If he were satisfied
that a wrong has been done, he would interpOse
in your behalf, and have no hesitation in say
ing that will cheerfully say to the governor
that, while with the view 1 take of the law 1 do
not feel justified in setting the verdict aside, yet
that now think, and have always thought, that
the verdict should have been not guilty.
Will you please ask the proper officer to show
this letter to NOwlin / received a note from his
sister a few weeks ago to which did not reply.
as she did not give her address.