St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-21
new TRIAL DENIED
Judge Smith Declines to Re-
open the Case Of Harry
Hayward.
INTERESTING MEMORANDUM
Making Clear Many Of the
Courts Rulings in Cele-
brated Case.
HAYWARD NOT SURPRISED.
Was Prepared for It, and Ex-
poets Nothing From SUI
preme Court.
HAYWARD NOT SURPRISED.


The order was filed at II 40 o'clock
and the news of the courts decision,
which was a foregone conclusion,
excited little comment, not one per-
son in 10000 having any idea that
new trial would he g anted.
When the news was conveyed to
the condemned man he showed
plainly that he had prepared him
self for the inevitable, and exhibited
not the slightest disappointment.
The official order of the court,
with the memorandum attached, is
as follows:
State of Minnesota, county of Henne-
pin, district court, Fourth judicial
district. The State OF Minnesota,
plaintiff, VS.. Harry T. Hayward, de-
PENDANT.
The above entitled cause was on the
calendar of the above-named court,
at a special term thereof, held at the
court house, in the city of Minneapolis,
ON the 18th day of April, 1895, in pur-
suance of an order of this court, made
at. a general term thereof. on the Both
day OF March, 1895; came on to bed
heard. and was heard, on motion on
the part of the defendant for an order
setting aside the verdict of the jury,
and granting him new trial therein
The defendant being present in court,
appeared by his attorney, w. w. Erwin,
Esq, in support of the motion, and A.
III. Hall, Esq, assistant county attor-
ney, appeared on behalf of the state,
in opposition thereto. By consent, this
motion was then submitted to the court,
on the briefs of the attorneys of the
respective parties.
Having duly considered the matter,
1t is ordered that the motion be, and
the same is, hereby denied.
SEAGRAVE SMITH,
Judge.
The memorandum is as follows:
1t is urged by the defendants attor-
ney, on this motion, that the court
erred in admitting the testimony of
the witness BliXt, wherein he testified
that the defendant offered him $100 if
he would take his revolver and go and
kill man, etc. Taking the other evil
denca in this case, it shows that the
witness Blixt and the defendant were
W
Cling. This conversation objected to
was a portion of the conversation be-
tween them laying the plan by which
the crime was to be committed, and
as preparation of the mind of Blixt
to consent to the doing of the killing.
1t. was admitted for no other purpose,
and not for the purpose of establishing
another distinct crime as will be seen
by the courts sustaining the objection
to the question Immediately previous to
that. The apparent object of this con-
versation between the defendant and
BlfXt, as well as that in reference to
the burning of the barn, was to stimu-
late the courage of Blixt to commit the
crime, and to place him in a position
of fear of exposure and punishment
for those acts if he failed to comply
with defendants request in the matter
OF killing Miss Cling. 1t was a part of
the preparation for the commission of
the crime. 1t was not objec tionab1e
because it also tended to prove the
commission Of another crime, or the
defendants attempt to have him COM
nit some other crime.
State VS.. Madigan. SO N. W. R., 46O.
thorities cited in the opinion of the
court.
The same rule applies to the testi-
mony of Mrs. BliXt, wherein she testi-
fled to the strange actions of Blixt
two or three weeks prior to the MUIR
der. According to Blixt's testimony,
his strange actions, loss of appetite and
Inability to sleep were brought about
by the defendant to further and con-
summate the design of effecting the
death of Miss Cling, and was in cor
roboration of his testimony in that re-
gard. All conversation between them
was excluded. Nothing, only as to his
appearance during this time, was al
lowed.
AS to the testimony of Adry, that tn
defendant had told him that he had
caused a $4,000 fire in the East, this
was a part of the entire conversation
between the witness and the defend
ant, when he was trying to induce him
to kill Miss Cling, and was properly
admissible as such. All of which was
admissible to show the intent and pre-
meditation on the part of the defend
ant to commit the crime
AS to the testimony of Valley, some
of 1t was objected to, and some portion
of it stricken out. The corroborated
evidence of BliXt, outside of the testi.
mony of Adry Hayward, was COM
posed largely of circumstantial evil
dence. The testimony of Valley, not.
withstanding it did not connect the
Inquiries directly to the taking Of the
life of Miss Cling. yet it was a circum.
stance which was proper to be con.
sidered in connection with other ties.
timony, ana what subsequently fol.
lowed, showing intent, and was prop.
erly admitted.
Harris VS.. State, 20 S. W. R., GIG.
There is nothing whatever in the
point that the court refused to allow
the defendant to inquire into the abil
ity of the witness Emma Goodale tt
foreteli the future etc. She was called
and examined by the state for the sole
purpose of proving the relations, in Sc
far as she knew them, between the de.
PENDANT and Miss Cling. 1t was not g
proper crosS-eXamination of the wit.
ness.
The testimony of Mrs. HaZelton. tina,
Miss Cling said to her, about half pas
p. m. of the day of the murder, thai
she had a business engagement with
! Mr.. Hayward, as a reason that she
could not go to dinner with her, was
in our opinion, properly received as
part of the res gestae. 1t had then ap
peared from the testimony that she
had been seen in the company of Hay
| ward, the defendant, in less than one
! hour and a half after that time L
characterized her act Of going to NEE
| the defendant. 1t was a declaration
| indicating present purpose Of inten
| ton. It was verbal act.
1 Greenleaf Ev., par 10S Huntel
VS.. State, 40 N. J. Law, 495. Territory
| VS.. Conk, At N. w. r., 3s5. Thomas VS.
State, CT Ca, AGO. State VS.. Dickinson
4 Al Wis, 299, and cases cited State VS.
Howard, 80 VT. $50. State VS.. Miner, L
Kan. 29S Burns VS.. State, 40 Ala, $40
| In cases of this kind the declaration:
1 of the deceased, made before the homi
eide. when starting or going to NEE
the accused, are ordinarily admitted
in evidence, as a part of the res gestae