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

by the defense that Catherine Cling,
the person named in the indictment as
having been killed on the Sd of Decenl-
Der last, is dead, and that she came
to her death in a violent manner and
from injuries received from the hands
of some third person, 1t is claimed by
the state, and it has introduced evil
dence tending to support that claim,
that she came to her death from q
bullet discharged from a pistol, and
which passed through her head. 1t has
been claimed by the defendant that
she was killed by blow on her head
which fractured her skull, and that the
pistol shot was made after death.
1t is immaterial which claim is cor.
rect, that of the state or that of the
defenSe, in so far as the question as to
what caused her death is concerned. 1t
matters not whether it resulted from a
pistol shot, blow or other like act of
violence. 1t is not necessary that the
proof in that regard should strictly
conform to the charge as laid in the
indictment. l take it that the only
object of the claim of the defense that
she was killed by blow and not by a
pistol shot was to contradict and dis
credit the testimony of the witness
BliXt as to how the killing was done.
To what extent the defense has sue
ceeded in that effort 1t is for you to de-
termine from all of the evidence or
testimony bearing on that question.
The state claims that Catherine Cling
was killed by the act of Claus A. BIixt,
and that it has established that claim
by the testimony of Blixt when he con-
fesses that he killed her, and details
the circumstances attending the horri-
BILE act, and by other corroborating
testimony. 1 do not understand that
the defense denies that he killed her,
but claims that he did it at another
place and in a different manner than
that testified to by him. that his state
ments, both in and out of court, are in
consistent and improbable. In con-
sidering and determining this ques-
tion, you have have a right to take
into consideration the condition that
Blixt's mind must necessarily have
been in that night during that jour-
ney, and the probability of his noting
every detail of that terrible transac-
tion. In order to convict the defend
ant, under the final count in the in
dictment, it is necessary that you be
satisfied from the evidence, beyond a
reasonable doubt-F'irst, that Claus A.
Blixt killed Miss Cling; second, that the
defendant induced or procured him to
kill her
The first question on this branch Of
the case you will consider after retir-
ing to your room, will be: Is the evil
dence sufficient to satisfy you beyond
a reasonable doubt that Blixt killed
her? If it is not, then you need not
consider the case any further, but re-
turn a verdict of mot guilty" If you
are satisfied, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that Blixt did kill her, then you
will proceed further and determine
whether you are satisfied, beyond a
reasonable doubt, from all the evil
dence, that the defendant procured and
induced him to kill her. If you. are,
then you will return a verdict of
Guilty as charged in the first count in
the indictment" If you do not so de-
termine or find, then you will return
verdict of Not guilty" If it is true,
as Blixt has testified, that he killed
Miss Cling, and that the defendant in
duced and procured him to do the kill
ing, he was an accomplice, and the de-
fendant cannot be convicted on his
testimony unless he is corroborated by
such other evidence as tends to con-
vict the defendant of the commission
of the offense. The confederation is
not sufficient if it merely shows the
commission of the offense or the cir
cumstances thereof. The corrobora-
ting testimony must, independently of
the testimony of Blixt, tend in some
degree to establish the guilt of the de-
fendant; but it need not be sufficient,
standing alone, to justify a conviction.
1t is claimed on the part of the state
that Blixt's testimony is corroborated
by the testimony of Adry Hayward.
wherein he testifies that the defendant.
three days prior to the murder, told
him, in substance, that he was going
to procure Blixt to kill Miss Cling, and
by other facts and circumstances which.
it is claimed, tend to show that Biixt's
testimony, in that regard, is correct.
This rule requiring corroborating evil
dence is applicable to his testimony in
relation to the defendants inducing
and procuring him to kill her. as well
as to the claim that Blixt killed her.
and to any material matter which is
in issue in this case.
The corroboration may be made by
circumstantial evidence, as well as by
direct testimony. In most criminal