The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1893-11-09

the county attorneys motion IN the
following language. <. j..
THE DECISION.
The offense of which the defendant
stands charged by the Indictment is
murder in the second degree, COM
mited on the End day of Nov, 1889.
Two grand juries before, when this
case was presented, failed to find an
Indictment, but upon the third present
alton of the case to the grand jury at
the September, term 1892, general
term of this court, the Indictment upon
which the defendant is now on trial
was found. The case was brought on
for trial at the last term of this court,
the State being represented by Assist
ant Attorney General Edgerton and the
county attorney, Mr.. Ross. A jury
was readily obtained most of whom
were entire strangers to the affair,
having come into the county since the
commission of the alleged offense.
Upon the trial the jury disagreed, and
as stated by them at the time of their
discharge, stood nine for acquittal and
three for conviction. The defendant
then demanded another trial at that
time, but on motion of the attorneys
for the State the trial was postponed
until to-day to enable them to obtain
further evidence in support of the
prosecutions; and now the county attor-
ney moves that the case be dismissed
for the reason that, in his opinion, the
evidence on the part of the State is in
sufficient to secure a conviction, and
that no further proof can be obtained
on the part of the prosecution than was
offered at the last trial. The assistant
attorney general objects to the. dis
missal, at the same time stating in
open court that if the case was to be
retired now the evidence on the part
of the State would not be materially
different than that given upon the last
trial. He states, however, that he has
recently learned the name of a person
who might, if present, give some adj
ditional testimony, and has stated tc
the court privately what he expected
he could prove by such witness if pres.
ent. The whereabouts of such person
is unknown and there is no showing oil
any expectation of being able to pro
cure his presence at some future time
Moreover, if the testimony of such wit
ness could be had it would not, in the
opinion of the court, be materia.
enough to strengthen the case of the
State or change the result.
There is no showing Of any hope O,
Expectation on the part of the State tx
obtain at any time any proof, in add
ton to the testimony given upon the
last trial, that would, in the opinion O.
the court, strengthen the case of the
State, hence this matter must be de
termined upon the case as it stands.
! The defendant has right under thu
constitution of the State to a speed,
and impartial trial, although this RICH
must be construed to give the State
every reasonable opportunity to prepar'
for trial. It seems to me that there is NJ
showing on the part of the prosecutio,
which would justify a postponement o
the trial. The principal and onl.
other question to be determined there
fore is whether the motion to dismis
should be granted.
I regret very much that this contro
versey has arisen between the count
attorney and the attorney general as t.
their authority to represent the Stat
in this behalf. The attorney genera
having been requested by the governo
} to prosecute this case claims that hi
l authority, under the statute, super
, venes that Of the county attorney
), However, the attorney general waive
, this right and submits the case to tn
court for the exercise of its discretio
and Judgment in the premises. It j
not necessary therefore, for me to dc
termine the question as to which {
: these officers has the paramount
q . i - r. 4