The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1892-06-03

He was not drunk at these times re-
ferred to.
DR.. VIM. Jacoby testified that in,
sanity sometimes results from sun
stroke. He cited an authority who
holds that IN three out of twenty
cases of sunstroke insanity results.
B. d. Smith testified in rebuttal OF
certain statements made by Mr.. Bry.
an
The defense rested at noon.
William King appeared in court
and demurred to the first indictment
against him and pleaded not guilty
to the second.
Immediately upon assemblingFriday
afternoon, G. n. Andrews commenced
his argument on the part of the state,
and made strong plea. He made
light work of the insanity dodge, and
stated that the state did not even
care to put on evidence in rebuttal OF
this, the defense not having made
out case. All people have their Pc
culiarities and oddities, and Yorker
has his to no greater extent than any
one else. He handled the witnesses
Gaylord Lamb and w. III. Wilson
without gloves. His argument last
ed about an hour.
The argument for the defense was
made by B. D. Smith. He held that
the state had failed to make out a
case, not having shown that Mr..
Yorker secured the money, or that he
had used it for his own purpose. He
reviewed the testimony tending to
show insanity and urged that there
was no doubt of the defendants in
sanity, and that he had been of un-
sound mind for years.
The jury in the Yorker case was un.
able to agree until $3.50 o'clock Satur-
day morning. The verdict was received
at 40 o'clock, and declared that the
jury had found the prisoner not guilty
of grand larceny in the first degree,
but guilty of petit larceny, and rec
ommending him to the mercy of the
court.
Upon the first ballot the jury stood
five for conviction and seven for ac-
quittal. Two Of the jury favored
conviction of grand larceny in the
first degree, and the verdict was a
compromise. Some of the jurors were
influenced by the insanity defense
and believed the prisoner to be of un-
sound mind. This being the case it
would seem that they failed to OBJ
serve the instructions of the court,
which were that if the prisoner was
insane verdict of not guilty must
be brought in
Among the business men who have
followed the case closely, the verdict
is considered unwarrantable and is
generally condemned as travesty up
on justice. However there were
many circumstances not placed in ev-
idence and which the jury could not
know or be supposed to know, which
influence some Of our citizens. One
of the jurors stated that had the state
introduced evidence tending to show
that Yorker was of sound mind the
verdict would probably have been diff
ferent. On account of his estimable
family, many are satisfied over the
verdict, and believe that Yorker has
been taught sufficient lesson and
will brace up and be man. 1t is GER
tainly to be hoped that this will be
the case, and he has many friends in
the city who would doubtless be glad
to lend him helping hand.
At the completion of the arguments
yesterday afternoon, Judge Severance
gave his charge to the Jury. Neither
side could claim any fayors, unless it
was the defense, as special instruc-
tions offered by the latter were adj
mitted. The court held that accord
ing to the wording of the Indictment
the Jury could bring in verdict of
guilty of grand larceny in the first OF
second degree, or of petit larceny, if
the prisoner should be found guilty at
all. Grand larceny in the first degree
consists in stealing over $500, and is
punishable by an imprisonment OF
not less than five nor more than ten
years. Grand larceny in the second
degree consists in stealing more than
$25 and less than $500, and is punisha.
bic by an imprisonment of not more
than five years. Petit larceny consists
of stealing less than s25, and is pun
ishable by a fine of not to exceed $500
or imprisonment in the county jail
not to exceed three months.
The offense charged is serious one,