St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-06-12
MADIGAN IS DEFEATED.
REDWOOD COUNTY ATTORNEY MyST
SERVE OUT SENTENCE
FoK THE CRIME OF PERJURY.

Finds That Madigan In His
Own Testimony In the Trial
Below Made Fatal Admissions
Other Important Decisions.
Ex-County Attorney Madigan, Of Red
wood county. serving sentence i'll the
peni.entiary under conviction for per-
jury, gets no relief in his appeal to the
supreme court for new trial. Judge
CAVITY in writing the opinion discusses
the nine points raised by the appellant.
concluding. as the syllabus shows, that
none of the exceptions or claims of
error were we'll taken; that the pre-
ponderance of testimony was not con-
flicting, that the court below was not in
error III rulings upon the trial. nor in
refusing to grant a new trial.
The testimony upon which the ac-
cused was convicted was published in
eXtpnso at the time of the trial, and
nothing has since transpired to iiupeach
1t. In the opinion of Judge CAVITY he
finds that the accused in his own testi-
mony made fatal admissions which go to
corroborate the claim OF the prosecution
and the statements of ROmnes, the
prosecuting witness. The decision of
the supreme court leaves Madigan to
serve out his sentence unless it may be
RENTED, in part, by executive Glenn
ency.
The syllabi are as follows:
Stale of Minnesota, respondent. vs. Michael
NJ. Nadigan. appellant. Order affirmed.
CAVITY, j.
l. Where in an indictment for per-
jury il is assigned as perjury that the
accused i'll an affidavit for attachment
swore falsely That he was the attorney
for the plaintiff in the attachment suit,
held that it's not necessary TO allegc In
the Indictment that the accused was an
attorney at law.
@ Held though the statute does not
require it to appear in the affidavit for
attachment that such person making the
affidavit is AL attorney for the plaintiff
therein, his right to make it must
atfirnatively appear somewhere i'll the
attachment proceedings before the writ
can rghtfuliy issue,and 1t may properly
appear in such affidavit and is material,
and if knowingly false perjury may be
assigned upon II.
8. Held 1t is not necessary to aver in
an indictment that matter assigned as
ptlJulN lS HldtClldl WuCu IL Appeals
from the facts set out in the Indictment
that it is material.
4. Held the production of an affida-
Wit regular in form with proof that the
accused signed it and that the
officer before whom it purports to be
sworn 10 signed the jurat and affixed
his seal, Is sufficient evidence OH the
trial OH such an Indictment that the ac-
cused actually swore to the affidavit.
5. If the evidence offered tends to
prove the commission of the crime
charged in the Indictment, 1t is not in
competent becaus. it also tends to prove
the commission of the accused OF an
other crime
6. Held the assignments of error as
to The charge are not we'll taken.
Z. Where the affidavits III support of
a motion are contradicted by counter
affida, It's the finding Of the court below
on the disputed facts is conclusive if
there is any evidence to sustain it.
s. Where some of the jurors drank
Intoxicating liquor during the trial. but
before retiring to consider their verdict;
Held, on a motion for a new trial this
raises presumption against the valid
ity of the verdict. which may be rebut-
ted by showing that In fact such Jurors
were not Intoxicated.
ton for new trial made on the ground
that one: of the jurors did not under
stand the English language when the
moving party had an opportunity to as
certain that fact and challenge the
juror for that cause before he was
sworn.
QUO WARRANTO.
Judge Canty handed down rule upon
applications in quo warranto which is
of Importance to litigants and attorneys,
the motion in the case being denied:
In re the motion Of George r. Whitcomb ct
al. for leave to file Information III the ma
ture of quo warranto VS.. W. K. Lockerby
and T. A. Locke. Application denied.
CAVITY, j.
This is an application for leave to file
an information in che nature of quo
warranto by some Of the alleged stock
holders and officers of private corp0-
ration to try the right of some others to
hold certain offices in the corporation.
In the case of State VS.. Dowlan, 80 Min
nesOta, $50, it was held by this court:
"We are agreed that tine granting of
leave 10 file an information Especially
upon the application of private per
sUn)is within the discretion OF the court.
and that leave ought not to be granted
where the law furnishes another REM
edy, unless under special and extep.
tional circumstances" Chapter 79,
General Statutes 1878. furnishes another
remedy, and there are no such special
or exceptional circumstances in this case
as would take il out of the rule.
Neither do we wish to be understood
as holding that there is no other such
remedy except that provided by chapter
70, which must be brought by the attOr.
ney general. Section of chapter so,
r. S. 1851. abolished the writ of QUO
warranto and provided the remedy now
found in said chapter 49, Chapter 122,
r. S. 1866. repealed the provision of
1851, but re-enacted all of said chapter
50 thereof, except the first section, which
abolished quo warraIto. Whether this
did not revive the common law writ of
quo warranto, as writ to be issued by
the district court, it is not necessary
here to decide.
OTHER DECISIONS.
In the matter of the receyership of James
Shea, insolvent Daniel II. Moon, receiver,
appellant. VS.. j. and L. Wineman ct al.
respondents. Order affirmed. CAVITY, j.
When an insolvent aud the receiver
Of his property under the insolvency
law enter into conspiracy by which
the receiver agrees tossell the property
TO ii third party and have the third
IL " luC WllO vi VIC III
solvent for his benefit:
Held such sale by receiver is fraudu-
lent and void as to creditors, and the re-
ceiver is chargeable with the full value
of the property SO sold whec that is
more than the price received for the
property.
Held. further. that an ex parte order
confirming such sale is not conclusive
as against the creditors, but may be set
aside by direct proceedings for that pur-
pose.
Held, the evidence in this case is suf-
ficient to sustain the order declaring
fraudulent and setting aside such SALE
Where, on an application of the re-
ceiver i'll such case to settle his final
account, part only of the creditors OBJ
ject and demand that the receiver &C.
count for the full value of the property
SO fraudulently sold, and the court so
ordered,
Held. such order inures to the bene-
Of oil hn .