The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1893-02-10

punishment ought TO be imposed, only
the lowest can justly be inflicted. In
no other way could the court defend
itself before it's own conscience.
The court is not expected in pro-
nOunclng it's Judgment to justify a
multitude of diverse opinions that the
public may entertain or the strong
and natural desires of those who may
have been deeply injured by the COM
mission of the crime; the court must
keep the approval of it's conscience
and try to abide by the spirit as well
the letter of the law.
Now as to the case on hand, the de-
PENDANT was convicted on his confess
sion voluntarily and unhesitatingly
given very soon after his arrest. With
out that confession there is no pre-
tense that he could have been con-
victed under the evidence offered in
the case.
The cOrroborating evidence in the
case was only sufficient to give the
confession of the defendant a stand
| ing in the case and the force and eff
| feet, which the jury did give and was
warranted in giving it.
Since that confession was the main
and prevailing evidence in the case
which secured the conviction of the
! defendant, it should receive credit in
all its parts as well when it makes
for the defendant as we'll when it
makes against him, unless some good
reason can be shown why those pOr-
tions of the confession that make for
the defendant should be rejected as
unworthy of credit, whilst the rest
may stand and condemn him
If person can tell the truth against
himself he may in the same connec-
tion tell some truth in his favor.
That the defendant and the de-
ceased were fellow labOrers and had
| been for some time before the com
mission of the crime in question is
| known to all.
The evidence shows that on the
fatal night the defendant and the
| deceased were in each others company
until midnight and that they became
drunk by the use OF intoxicating liz.
uOr. The habit of intemperance was
the bare of buth of their lives. About
midnight they went to the brick
yard where they were both employed
and where at least one of them often
slept, and where both of them had
shanties under their control.
The defendant in his confession
claims that when he was sitting down
by his shanty and in condition OF
maudlin drunkenness and with a
hammer in his hand which he had
procured for d lawful purpose, he
looked up and saw the deceased car.
rying away back load of wood from
one of the piles in the yard: that he
| then called upon the deceased to lay
the wood down: that the deceased
turned and applied to him one of the
fCulest and most provoking epithets
that one person can apply to another
and that he Immediately chased the
deceased and struck him on the head
with the hammer he had in his hand
and from these blows the deceased
fingered few days and died. The
defendent in his confession claimed
that he made the assault smartine
under the provocation given by the
deceased. Some parts of this story
story are corroborated by proved cir
cumstances in the case.
Where tn e violence shows that thu
conflict occurred, there was fOunt
lying on the ground the morning aftel
the deed, the wood that would an
swer to the back-load that the de
PENDANT says in his confession the de
ceased was carrying away when he
called to him. The defendant con
fessed to have taken some money
from the pocket book of the deceased
and appropriated it to his own use.
have good reason to believe that whel