Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1895-11-22
The Supr me Court of Minnesota
Sustains the Court
Below.
Opinion Written by Judge Canty
and Concurred in by All
the Justices.
Governor Clough Will Fix Date
of Execution Within Thirty
Days.

~ ST. PAUL, NOV. Sl.-Ine supreme
court has sealed the fate of Harry Hay
ward by affirming the decision of the
trial court in Hennepin county, and it
now only remains for the governor to
fix the date Of execution. The court
was unanimous in sustaining the con-
viction of Hayward, but Chief Justice
Start dissents on one proposition. He
holds that the testimony of Mrs. Hazel
ton that Miss Cling had told her she had
a business engagement with Hayward
that evening was not admissible on the
ground that it tended to characterize
her subsequent acts and her departure
on the fatal ride soon after she made
the statement. He holds that it is as
signing a
Wrong Reason For a Right Conclusion,
and that the admission Of Mrs. Hazel
toms testimony should have been sus-
tanned on the ground that it was
original evidence tending to corroborate
that Of Blixt that she did meet Hay
ward. The opinion is written by JUS
tice Canty. The syllabus, which
tersely puts the points decided in the
case, reads:
First-On the trial of an Indictment
for one crime, the prosecution may prove
the admission by the defendant Of the
commission by him Of other independ-
ont crimes, when relevant and material
to the issue.
Second Conversations Of the defend
hof, $1,ao
mission of the murder, held competent
under the circumstances as tending to
prove that he then contemplated the
commission of the crime
Third-The statement of the deceased
a few hours before the homicide, not in
the presence Of the defendant, that she
had business engagement with him
that evening, held competent evidence
against him in connection with the other
evidence in the case.
Fourth Certain expert evidence held
to be irrelevant
Fifth-Ce evidence offered to
corroborate the defendants evidence,
held of no weight, and that it was not
error to rule it out.
sixth-Two witnesses for the defense
testified that in the company of each
other they were going along the road
when they observed certain facts, held
it was not error to permit them to be
cross examined for the purpose of as
certaining whether there was any con-
cert or agreement between them as to
their testimony, and for this purpose
the court might permit one witness to
be asked what the other witness had
subsequently told him as to what he
Saw.
Seventh Certain evidence offered to
corroborate one Of the states witnesses,
held properly admitted.
Eighth witness had been
fully cross examined on q certain point,
held not error to refuse to permit him
to be further oss-examined on the
same point later in the trial
Ninth-Held not error to refuse to re-
ceive certain evidence at the close Of a
protracted trial, after the regular time
to introduce it had passed, and that the
rulings Of the trial judge do not show
that he exercised his discretion in favor
of so receiving the evidence out Of or
der, but rejected it on some other
ground.
TenthAfter a witness for the state
had testified at considerable length and
was to all appearances perfectly sane
and rational, the defense objected to his
competency on the ground that he was
insane, but made no offer to prove that
he was. fst s
Held, under all the circumstances, it
was not error for the judge to assert
that he did not see that the witness was
at that time any more insane than the
attorney was. IA II
Eleventh hen insanity Of perma-
nent type is once shown, it is presumed
to continue until it appears that the
person has again become sane. But
this presumption only applies to habit
ual insanity, which has continued SO
long as to raise a presumption that it
iSx,armane.lt. Temporary insanity. OF