St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-09

ness, tnat IL was 10 De secured by a
chattel mortgage on the goods pur-
chased by the money SO loaned; that
the life insurance policies were as
signed to him as temporary Sc
curity in case she should die before he
got the mortgage security, and as adj
ditional security; that the reason he
gave her this money before she was
ready to use it in her business was that,
he desired to place it beyond his con-
troll, so that he could not use it for,
gambling purposes; and from the frank
manner in which after the death of
Miss Cling, he disclosed to the officers
his business transactions with her,
withholding nothing. the presump-
ton is that there was no fraud in the
loan transaction or that the money
loaned had been paid at the time, and
it is incumbent on the state to prove
that there was. 1t is not necessary
that the proof be made by direct tes-
timony 1t may be proved by cir,
cumstantial evidence. 1t may be eS-
tablished by such legal evidence as
shall satisfy your minds. You are not
bound to accept as true the testimony
of any witness uncorroborated, even
when it is not contradicted by any
direct testimony, when it contains in
herent improbabilitieS or contradic-,
tions, which alone or in connection
with other circumstances in evidence
furnish a reasonable ground for con-
Guiding the testimony not to be true.
You have heard all of the testimony
on this branch of the case in support
of the respective claims. There is
but little if any controversy in re-
lation to the procuring of the insur-
ance on Miss Ging's life, and the as
signment of the policies to the defend
ant, or the manner of the making OF
the loan on the oath of November, ex-
cept as to the amount loaned, and the
good faith of the transaction. After
fully considering all the facts in con-
nection with it, you are to determine
from it and the circumstances con-
nected with it, whether the defendant
had any motive in taking the life OF
Catherine Cling.
AS I have already stated to you,
Blixt being an accomplice in the crime,
If his testimony is true, the defendant
! cannot be convicted on his uncorrob-
Grated evidence.
The state claims that his evidence
has not only been corroborated by the
testimony of Adry Hayward, in which
he .testifies that on the Goth day of No
vember the defendant told him in
substance that he was going to kill
| her, and that Blixt was the man to do
the job, that the testimony of Adry is
substantially admitted to be true from
the fact that he testified that he told
it to Elder Stewart on the same day,
and that the defense has not called
Stewart to deny it. The state further
claims that the testimony of Blixt has
been corroborated by many other cir
cumstances which are founded on
facts, among which was the motive
he had for killing her, to which we
have already referred; their social and
business relations; her love and i'm
plicit confidence in him. the relations
he sustained to Blixt; the amount of
time he had spent with him both day
and night for some time before the
date of the murder; his conduct i'm
mediately following the loan, claiming
to be suspicious about it, claiming
that he was fearful she was going to
do him up, and he would lose his
money; that he was bound to secure
it either by fair or foul means; his
conduct on the night of the murder.
both before and after, and his conduct
and sayings in relation to his business
matters with her, especially the mat
ter of the loan and insurance up to the
time of his arrest; his being seen in,
the carriage with Miss Cling near the
place where BliXt said he met him
and took the carriage with her at his
request, and near where he was zen
running up Hennepin avenue towards
the city about the same time; that the
discrepancy in the testimony of Blixt
on the trial, and his statements made
to the mayor soon after he was ar
rested are not material, and do not
contradict any important fact testified
to by him showing that Catherine.
Cling came to her death by this act,e
and by the procurement of the de-
PENDANT. And that he has fully ex-
planned in his testimony on the trial
that the discrepancies resulted from
his disordered mental and physical
condition, he was at that time unable
to remember all the particulars of the
transaction which on reflection have
come to him since That he admits
that the first statement to the mayor
was not true in so far as he stated
and he took care of the body; that all
of these facts and circumstances
taken together in the absence of any
reliable testimony that Miss Cling was
on intimate terms with any other man,
or that Blixt had any other associate
in crime except the defendant, or had
any motive in charging his friend,
who seems to have been a friend to
h 20 he .--1.A
der with the crime, are all facts
creating circumstances corroborating
the testimony of Blixt, and to such
an extent that his story of the COM
mission of the crime and the origin
ator of it is entitled to credit, and
your belief, and it is sufficient i'm con-
nection with all the other evidence
and circumstances tending to establish
the guilt of the defendant beyond a
reasonable doubt.
On the other hand it is claimed by
the defense that Blixt is a self-con-
fessed murderer, hoping for mercy if he
succeeds in convicting the defendant;
that his testimony is fabricated for the
occasion, and stands before you as a
self-contradicted and perjured witness,
and not entitled to credit
1t is also claimed by the defense that
the testimony of Blixt is not true in
regard to his meeting of defendant on
Kenwood boulevard, where he got into
the carriage with Miss Cling, and all of
his testimony in regard to what took
place there, and that the defendant |
was not there, and that he did not
have time to go there after he left the
Ozark and the time that he arrived at
Bartleson's, from which place he went |
to the theater.
The state claims that. taking the
testimony of the defendant and his
witnesses as to the time he was last
seen at the Ozark, he had plenty of
time to make this journey as testified
to by RliXt and then get to the thea fer