St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-01-06
HAWKS and EVANS LOSE.
SUPREME COURT HOLDS THE MDic!-
MENT GOOD.
MUST PLEAD WITH A JURY.

Ramsey County District Court
Junge Kelly Sustained in
Refusing to Dismiss Indict-
ments.
The supreme court Yesterday handed
down an opinion in the Hawks and
Evans case. written by Justice Mitchell,
i'll which Judge Kelly is sustained i'll
his refusal to dismiss the indictment,
and tie two men must go on trial upon
the indictment. The dismissal was
asked on the ground of certain infOr-
malitieS in the manner of drawing the
jury lists. and the failure to indorSe
upon the indictments the names or the
witnesses examined before the grand
jury.
The syllabus of the decision is espe-
cially interesting. and runs as follows:
State of Minnesota, plaintiff, VS.. Charles a.
Hawks and William b Evans defendants.
Affirmed and remanded. MITCHELL, j.
Special Laws 1876, chapter pa. pro-
vidIng that the grand Jury lists for
Ramsey county shall be selected from
the qualified electors of the several
wards III the city of st. Paul and towns
of said county," does not require that
the names selected shall be apporlloned
among the different wards and towns.
All that the law requires is that those
making the list, having in mind the
whole b01y of. the county, shall make
the selection with special reference 10
fitness, regardless OF ward or town lines.
The witnesses. whose names are re-
Quired TO be Endorsed on an indictment
or inserted at the foot thereof, are only
those who were examined and gave
material evidence upon the particular
charge alleged in the indictment at the
time when such charge was being in
Yestigated by the grand jury.
Ii is not required to indOrSe or enter
the names OF witnesses who, while other
charges were being investigated, may
have given evidence material upon the
charge alleged i'll the indictment, un-
less the grand jury found the indict-
ment in whole or in part Oh such evil
dence; and the fact that the names OF
such witnesses are not Endorsed or en-
tered on the indictment is conclusive
that the grand jury did not take such
evidence into account in finding true
bill"
The fact that person may. in the in
YeStigatiOn of some other charge by the
grand jury, have been required to give
evidence which would have been ma
terial on the particular charge for which
he is indicted is no cause fer setting
aside the Indictment on the ground that
lie was required to testify against HIM
self, unless it appears from the indorse-
ment or entry OF his name OH the i'll
dlctment as a witness that the grand
jury found the bill, i'll whole or in part,
OH his evidence.
The syllabi in other decisions of the
supreme court read as follows:
John W. GriggS, respondent VS.. City of st.
Paul, appellant. Order reversed
MITCHELL, j.
Syllabus-M having entered into a
contract with the city of st. Paul to
grade Park avenue, executed to S. all
order in the words following:
10 the City of st. Paul: Pay to S.
$50, and deduct that amount from any
money which may be due me on account
of the grading of Park avenue.
Signed IN"
Held, in Viewof the fact that the order
was on city which had no power to
accept drafts generally of the credit of
the drawer that the instrument was not
draft or bill of exchange. but an order
payable out of particular fund, and
operated as partial assignment of that
fund.
Also that the term "may be due" does
not refer exclusively TO what was pres
emily due and payable at the date of
the order, but also includes moneys that
may thereafter,eecome due and payable
under the contract.
In re assignment of the State Bank, insolvent
George II. Fletcher, assignee appellant VS..
Charles f. Osbourn and David +. Clark, CO.
partners as Usbourn d Clark, respondents.
Order affirmed. MITCHELL, j.
The general rule is that upon de-
DOsit being made by customer in a
bank, in the ordinary course of BUSH
Hess, of money, drafts or other nego-
liable paper. received and credited as
money, the title of the money. drafts or
other paper Immediately becomes the
property of the bank, which becomes
debtor 10 the depOsitor for the amount;
and il no other facts appeared accept
these they would be held to concluSively
show that such was the intention.
But the question is one Of the agree
ment of the parties, and neither the fact
that the Endorsement of the paper 10y
the customer was unrestricted, nor that
he was, before collection, credited with
the amount on his account, with the
privilege OF drawing against it, is con-
elusive on the question of the ownership
of the paper. If 1t was in fact delivered
10 the bank for collection, or for 'col-
lection and credit" credit to the Gus
TONER before collection Will be deemed
merely provisional. which the bank may
cancel if the paper is not paid by the
maker or drawer.
Evidence in this case considered and
held to justify the finding that the bank
held certain drafts for collec ton as
agents of the petitioners.
Jennie II. Evarts Administrative of the es-
tate of James Evarts, deceased, respond
ent, VS.. st. Paul. Minneapolis u Manitoba