Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1895-11-21
HAYWARD HANGS
The Supreme Court of Minnesota
Sustains the Court
Below.
Opinion Written by Judge Canty
and COncurred in by ALI
the Justices.
Governor ClOugh Will Fix Date
of Execution Within Thirty
Days.

ST.. PAUL, Nov. 21.-The 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
Tx the date of execution. The court
was unanimous in sustaining the con-
viction of Hayward, but Chief Justice
Start dissents on one proposition. lie
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
and that the admission Of Mrs. Hazel
ton : testimony shou d have been sus-
tanned on the ground that it was
original evidence tending to ~cOrrOborate
thag of BliXt that she did meet Hay
wari. The opinion is written by JUS
tlce CAVITY. The syllabus, which
torsply puts the points decided in the
case, reads:
First-On the trial Of an Indictment
for one crime, the prosecution may prove
the admission 10y the defendant Of the
commission by him of other pdopend-
ont crimes, when relevant and material
to the issue.
Soc0nd-Conversations Of the defend
ant four or five months before the COM
mission Of the murder, held competent
under the circumstances as tending TO
prove that he then contemplated the
commission of the crime.
Th!rd-The statement of the deceased
a lew hours before the homicide, not
the presence Of the defendant, that she
had a 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.
Fiflh-Certain 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 thai i'll the company of each
other they were going along the road
when they observed certain facts, held
il was not error to permit them TO be
cross examined for the purpose OF as
ce%rtaining whether there was any con-
cert or agreement between them as TO
their testimony, and for this purpose
the court might permit II 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-After a witness had been
fully cross-exapined on a certain point,
held not error to refuse TO permit HIM
to be further cross-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 ont of or
der, but rejected it on some other
ground.
Tenth-After 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.
Held, under all the circumstances, il
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.
Eleventh-When insanity of a perma-
nent type is once shown, it is presumed
to continue until it appears that the
rerson has again become sane. But
this presumption only applies to habit
ual insanity, which has continued so
long as to raise a presumption that 1t
is permanent. Temporary insanity, or
temporary decisions or alterations are
not presumed to continue. and evidence
of the same standing alone, is no evil
dcnce that the person is insane at a
la " period.
wv lfth-Evidence of the insanity OF
a PERSONS ancestors and relatives is not
alone competent or sufficient to prove
that he is insane, and such evidence can
only be used to ~corroborate other EVIL
dence of his insanity.
REPRESENTATIVES, insanity is a direct
temporary delusions or mental
alterations ard evidence of insanity
of ancestors and relatives is