The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1893-02-03
WANT A NEW TRIAL.
Giefer's Attorneys Ask For a New
Trial. Sentence Expected
Tomorrow.

court room and took his seat by his
attorneys. Forty or fifty spectators
were present to hear the proceedings
Lorin Cray presented bill of excep-
/ tions upon which he based motion
for new trial. But two points were
made, both in regard to the instruc-
tions to the jury by the court. The
defense held, first, that the court was
in error in refusing to instruct the
jury that the confessions of the de-
PENDANT out of court is very doubtful
evidence, unless supported by other
evidence tending to show that the
offenSe charged has been committed,
and that it is not sufficient to war
rant a conviction: and, second, that
the court was in error in refusing to
instruct the jury that conviction of
murder in the first degree was I'M
warranted.
The bill Of exceptions and ac-
cepUance by the court were as follows:
= LIZ SdoC CdLlc VI lOI UIldl DclOIC
Hon. NJ. J. Severance, district judge,
with jury, at the general term of
the court, at the court house, in the
city of MankatO, in the county of
Blue Earth, on the 26th and 9th days
of December, 1892, Byron Hughes,
county attorney and III. W. Childs
assistant attorney general, appearing
for the state, and W. E. Young and
Lorin Cray for the defendant.
Fourteen witnesses were sworn on
behalf of the'state, no evidence was
offered by the defendant; evidence
was offered on behalf of the state
tending to show that on the 18th day
of August, 1892, at the city of Manka-
to, in the county of Blue Earth, and
in the night time ofsaid day, that the
defendant assaulted one Leonard
Roway, the deceased, and struck him
several violent blows upon the head
with carpenters nail hammer, there
by crushing the skull of the deceased
and from which injury so inflicted the
deceased, few days thereafter, died.
There was no motive proven for the
commission of the Offense, unless it
was robbery; there was no eye witness
to the assault, and what actually
transpired at the time and place in
question was, as to it's details, proven
only by certain admissions and cOnfes.
sions of the defendant himself, which
were proved by two witnesses. In
such confession the defendant stated
that he was near a brickyard in the
suburbs of said city, at the time ir
question, having gone there for a law
full purpose, and that he heard the
deceased approach, and saw the de
! ceased take stick or two OF core
wood from cord wood pile near the
brick yard and start toward a shanty
occupied by the deceased, with core
wood stick upon his shoulder; thai
the defendant called out to said de
ceased to drop said cord wood. anC
that the deceased replied by calling
the defendant an obscene or vulgar
name; that thereupon the defendant
approached the deceased from be
hind and struck him several blows up
on the head with the hammer as here
inbefOre stated; and that after the de
ceased had fallen defendant took from
the body of the deceased six or sever
dollars in money.
The court charged the jury as tt
the law of murder in the first, seconC
and third degree.
At the request of the defendant tn
court also charged that where th
verbal admission of person charged
with crime is offered in evidence, tn
whole of the admission must be takel
together, as well that part which
ma keS for the accused as that whicl
, may make against him, and if a par
of the statement which is in favor O
the defendant is not disproved, an
is not apparently improbable or I'm
true, when considered with all othe
evidence in the case, then such par
of the statement is entitled to a
much consideration from the jury a
any other part of the statement.
The defendant requested the cour
to charge as follows:
The jury are instructed tina
under the evidence in this case the
cannot find the defendant guilty Q
murder in the first degree.
This charge was refused by tn
court, and the defendant duly except
ed to such refusal.
,, The defendant also requested tn
court to charge that the confession
| of person out of court are a dOubtfI
7 species of evidence, and should be ac1
ed upon by the jury with great cal
r tion, and unless they are supported b
some other evidence tending to sho1
that the offense charged has bee
committed, they are not sufficient t
warrant a conviction of the defendan
. of such charge; which request was II
. fused by the court, and to the refuss
i fN( Two he 1of0 Ill