The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1892-12-30

| eQly unUll MS Skull was crushed int
dozen pieces. The old hat is elo
quent with the story of the assault
Giefer had no idea of meeting Roway
| again, feeling in his heart that moth
ing would ever escape the lips of Leo
nard Roway to implicate him in the
| crime. He had murdered him in colo
| blood, and thought that no eye haG
seen him, except the All-seeing Eye
above, to testify against him.
Giefer returns to work the next
morning and meets Roway, who al
once Identifies and accuses him. This
| disconnected Glefer and he fled. There
was witness he had not counted
| upon. Giefer had sense enough tC
know that, even if he had not killed
Roway but had committed only the
| bloody assault upon him which he
pretendS he thought he did, the Off
GERS would have him arrested the next
morning, and he would have skipped
out.
Giefer'S story might have had little
creditability had he not robbed what
he supposed to be the dead body OF
Roway. He left $500 with the Min
neopa House clerk to be sent to his
wife at Spirit Lake, before breakfast
When he came back he wanted the
money back. When he goes to work
he supposes Roway dead, but when on
his flight he stops to get his money.
All of the circumstances fit in.
Everything that Giefer did was on
the belief that he had killed Roway
In all great crimes men do foolish
things. When their hearts are bent
upon crime they are constantly doing
foolish acts, saying foolish things.
The confession of Giefer as to the
hammer and it's finding completes the
evidence against him. There is no
rational theory but that he used the
hammer for the purpose of killing
Roway. Giefer's confession is largely
cOrrobOratiOn Of the other facts dis
closed in the testimony. He told the
story because on account of Adam
sons statement he thought an ex-
PLANTATION was necessary. This con-
fessiOn strengthens the case. The in
tent of the man must be decided by
the jury. Giefer's theory must not be
accepted, as he linked truth with
falsehood. His excuse is the most
trivial that could be devised. The
fact that either man had been drink
ing does not, in the eyes of the law,
change the character of the crime.
The defendant is well defended by gen.
tlemen high at the bar in this state.
The address was fine one and was
convincing.
After a five minute recess, W. e.
Young addressed the jury on behalf
of the defendant. He opened by re-
ferring to the Importance of the duty
which the jury had to perform. The
defense perhaps admits all that the
State claims, yet it has a fighting
chance. We are not here claiming
that Giefer committed no crime, nor
are we asking his liberty. Mr.. Young
then read the definitions of the differ
ent degrees of murder. He took the
ground that the crime committed is
only murder in the third degree. Cap
ital punishment follows only the most
atrocious crimes, perpetrated after
due elaboration. The jury must act
outside of what the States counsel
has said, outside of peoples talk and
newspaper report.
The confession was then referred to
and upheld as truthful in every re-
spect. He denied that there was any
time for elaboration and determine
tion to murder, on the part of Giefer.
The drunkenness Of Giefer prevented
him from meditating a murder or be-
ing able to harbor design to commit
murder in the first degree. There
was no evidence of generalization.
The State had failed to show the
condition of Roway's hat before the
assault, and it is probable that some
of the injuries were done it before the
assault.
The most that can be said in the
case is that Giefer had a design to rob
ROway and assaulted him for that
purpose. The confession, supported
by the States evidence, corrOborates
this. Robbers do not unnecessarily take
mans life. After getting into the
alteration with Roway, Giefer struck
him, but did not know that he was
goins to die. The fact that the ante
norton statement of Roway was not
presented in evidence was referred to
by the speaker as peculiar circum-
stance The statement of the man
who was assaulted is lacking, although
in the possession of the State, reduced
to writing and sworn to. What OBJ
iect is there for man to admit that
he committed crime, and then lie
about how he did it? Giefer was