St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-06-16
REV. CONNOLLY SET FREE.
c01ytcTED QX TESTia0GF ALONE or
eML Of seEExTEEk.
WHO ALLEGED THE ASSAULT.


Village OF Aiinneeonka Vacated
Pour Reversaia Of Dist1ict
<, Courts and One Modification.
The supreme court yesterday handed
down nine decisions, all written by
Judge Mitchell. The most important of
these was that Of The State Ut Mlnns-
sofa. Respondent vs.. James E.. Con-
nelly. appellant. The defendant was
convicted Of criIplnaf assault upon q
young girl of seventeen. fChe Eirt was
tlis foster daughter OF Thomas Harmon
snd wife. Of Two Harbors. NEun., aud
the defendant was a priest in charge Of
the Catholic church in the same village.
Ihe defendant was convicted wholly
upon the testimony OF the prosecutrfx.
He appealed for new trial. This the
supreme court has granted him. thus
reversing the order Of the lower court
In his opinion Judge Mitchell says:
"fhe testimony Of the prosecuting
was entirely uncorrobOrated by any evil
dence, either direct or clrcumsrantiaI,
unless 1t be by the fact that she made
complaint to her brother nearly ten
weeks after the alleged commission of
the crime. The evidence offered was
not OF contrary statemens but Of facts
or acts tending to- disprove the facts
stated by the witness, and did not re-
qufre any foundation 10 be laid for its
introduction. She had testified that she
was forced by threats to go to defend
ants house and submit to him. The
evidence offered was of acts tending to
show that she was both willing aud
anxious TO go. For this error new
trial must be granted. The testimony
OF the prosecutTfx, certainly bears some
characteristics Of ImprobabiIity and, as
already remarked. it Is wholly uneor-
roborated by single circumstance such
as injury to her person er clothing. It
is more or less impeaehed by der own
contradictory statements. 1t is fatty
denied by the defendant, and is in i'm
portant particulars cotIradieted by the
testimony Of other witnesses
''Fhe defendant may he guilty Of
very grave ofeuse.a and be may be guilty
| OF the crime charged. but it has not in
our opinion been established by the de-
gree OF proof required By law, to wiz:
/ beyond reasonable doubt. We could
not conscientiouslY allow the conviction
to stand"
The syllabus is here given:
State OF Minnesota. respondent vs James T.
Cennsiley, appellant. Order reversed.
MITCHELL, j.
Syllabus-Cettain evidence held not
lmpeacbing III the sense vi being state
mentS Of the witness contrary to = hat
oh faS ff,r Sa1
OF facts or acts tending to uispruve the
facts stated by the witness, and hence
not requiring any foundation to be laid
Tor It's Introduction by first calling her
attention to it.
The uncorroberateG testimony of the
prosecutrix in this case being soIne-
what improbable and being imDeaclied
IN some particulars by her own prev
ious Inconsistent statements and in
other particulars by tile testimony of
other witnesses, held not sufficient to
Justify a conviction of the crime Of
rape.
CUSTER ORDERED To ISSUE.
In his opinion Ia tile case of The
State against The Village of Minne-
tonka. Judge Mitchell quotes the Ian
guage Ut the statute relating to the iii
corporation of. villages. The statute
says very pfdinly:
'.Any district, sections, or parts of
sections which have been plated into
lots and blocks. also tile lands adjacent
thereto, said territory containing resi-
dent population Of not less than l75.
may become incorporated as a village.
1.-The territory claimed to have been
incorporated as the village OF Mime
tonka is that enclosed in blue pencil
OH the n,ap annexed to the information.
It lies between the western boundary
Of the city OF Minneapolis and the east
ern shore Of Lake Minnetoaka. and con-
taIhs nearly thirty-fve square miles,
being nearly equal in area to a full gov
ernment township. Within this terri
tory there were at the time of the al
legged Incorporation seventeen or more
tracts which had been plated, as Judi
Gated on the map, into lots and blocks,
but were separated, each from
the other. by quite an extent
Of farm or unenitivased lands; and one
peculiarly Of the petition is that it does
not indicate which Of ,pumerous piats
was to be the nucleus OF the proposed
village.
TT Is apparent that this large terri
tory. essentially rural. has no fitness
for village government. and absolutely
no community of interest in respect to
the purposes for which such q govern
ment Is designed.
1.-THE validity Of respondents Incorpo-
ration is assailed OH the ground, first.
that the act is uHconstitutionai; second,
that the act does not authorize thu In
corporation Of such 4 territory into
village" Tbs Judge, after explaining
very clearly the object aud meaning Of
! the statute referred to. declares that
there Is no difficulty In determining. as
a matter Of law. that the, territory spoken
Of is not adjacent Within airy meaning
of the word, aud that the attempted ill.,
corporation of the village was wholly
| unauthorized by the act A writ Of
custer has been issued The syllabus of
| of the case follows:
State of Minnesota ex Eel., 81. W. Chflds
I attorney general reIator vs.. The Village Of
.Minnetonka ct al, respondents Ordered
that q writ OF custer issue. MITCHELL. j.
SylIabus-..Any district, actions or
parts Of sections. which hiss been plated
| into lots and blocks, also the land ada
| cent thereto said territory