St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-05-09
TWICE IN JEOPARDY.
On That Plea Mrs. Russell, OF
Eau Claire, Gains Her
Freedom.
She Is Discharged, and SO
Ends That Famous Mup-
der Case.
Six Steamers Fight Through
the Ice and Open Duluth
Navigation.
Crow Chiefs Agree to Allow
ing a Railroad Through
Their Reserve.
Special to the Globe.

Special to the Globe.
EAU CLAIRE, Wis. May Sin an
opinion of nearly 5000 words Judge
w. F. Bailey has disposed OF the famous
Russell case and has granted Mrs. Eli Z
abeth Russell discharge. The end of
this noted case was fOretold in many
ways by the newspapers of the state,
and 1t was not surprised crowd that
met in the court room here this fore
noon. Mrs. Russell appeared i'll her
habitual black dress, her face pale, but
was apparently buoyed with hope for
the freedom she was soon to obtain. A
great many lawyers were present
James O'Neill and State Senator Nc
Bride, from Neillsville; S. l.. Perrin,
st. Paul, and others from outside cities.
Judge Bailey begins his lengthy opinion
by telling how Jury found the defend
ant guilty at the February term
of 1892, and how, before Judgment,
the circuit court reported to the supreme
court certain questions of law. The first
question related to the district attorney
telephOning under the guise of her law
yer to Mrs. Russell at the Jail. This was
deemed by the supreme court an error.
For more reasons the mandate of the
supreme court did not reach the lower
court until April Of 1893. In November
the court, presuming the mandate had
been received, made an order setting
aside the verdict and granting new
trial. On April 25 the defendant moved
to yacate such order, and it was granted,
and the accused put in Jail by her own
attorney. The contention was whether
the circuit court had jurisdiction to make
such order; ii it had, there was no i'm
pediment to second trial. Under sec
tions 4,721 and 4,723 Judge Bailey held
that Jurisdiction was vested in the SUI
preme court, and while 1t was consider
ing and acting upon matters certified
aud reported TO it, the circuit court can
not proceed to judgment and sentence.
After quoting much law the opinion
shows the court cannot grant new
trial only upon the
Request of the Defendant.
A new trial would again place her in
jeopardy. Again he holds that Mrs.
RusselPs most sacred rights were IN
vaded and jeopardiZed by the state i'll
such manner and to such an extent
that new trial cannot restore them to
her. Here there was no defect in mat
ters of form or legal principles, but a
positive wrong, one which deprived her
of the right to make her own defense, in
her own way. He says: 'SeldOm has
there been a trial in this country which
excited equal interest or where the pro-
ceedingS had wider publicity" He
closed by saying: "The discharge of the
accused upon these proceedings may
excite comment and lead to expressions
unfayorable to the administration OF JUS
tice. This cannot be avoided. 1t may be
urged by some who have been anxious
for the
Conviction of This Woman,
whether the evidence was sufficient or
not, that she has escaped punishment
upon mere technicalitleS in the applica-
tion of legal principles. Such, however,
is not the case. Her discharge now saves
the county thousands of dollars. 1t re-
lieves the community from q repetition
of the disgraceful turmoil that peryaded
it during the many weeks that were oc-
cupied by the trial. AS the court is
frank enough to state that, unless the
evidence given upon second trial was
more substantial IN its nature, more
direct and positive than the evil
dence given upon the former trial,
the court would not, even If
a jury should convict, permit the YER
dict TO stand. The court would feel
obliged to apply the doctrine of the
law, so ably expressed by the supreme
court of Iowa in recent case. If a
man is to be committed to the peniten-
tiary for crime, his guilt of which Is
established, if at all, by clrcumstantial
evidence. such evidence should not only
point him out as guilty, but be incon-
slstent with any reasonable theory as to
his innocence. 1t will not do to let a
verdict stand which will deprive man
of his liberty when it is based upon
mere suspicion"