St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-08-10
MUST STAND TRIAL FOR THE
CRIME OF MURDER IN THE
THIRD DEGREE.
LENGTHY OPINION BY ORR.
NO SIMILAR CASE IN THE ANNALS
OF AMERICAN CRIMINAL
LAW.
ANALOGOUS ENGLISH CASES.
loves Attorney VIII Proceed by
Habeas Corpus to at Once
Test the Lazy.

Judge Orr announced his decision
in the Lowe case yesterday after
noon. 1t was that the defendant
Charles r. Lowe be held to await
the action of the grand jury, the
court stating at the same time that
the question of bail was one to be
determined by the district court. In
rendering his decision Judge Orr
gave an exhaustive review of the law
in the case, which he said was with
out exact precedent in the United
States. In the English courts, how
ever, analogous cases had been tried
and the law laid down. He gave the
statutory definition of murder in the
third degree, upon which charge de-
PENDANT had been examined, and also
that Of manslaughter. The court then
proceeds as follows:
Omissions are not the basis of
penal action unless they constitute
a defect in the discharge Of a re-
sponsibility with which the defend
ant is especially invested. The rule
seems to be, when a responsibility eX-
clusively imposed on the defendant
is such that an omission in it's per-
Torrance is, in the usual course of
events, casually followed by an in
jury to another person, or to the
state, then the defendant is indicta-
bic for such omission.
''WhoeVer assumes the exclusive
charge of a helpless person is indicta-
BILE for manslaughter if he cause the
death of such person by withholding
the necessaries of life. This rule I'M
doubtedly applies to jailers and
almshouse keepers and persons I'M
dertaking the voluntary charge of
lunatfcs. 1t has been correctly ex-
tended in England to a person who
undertakes the exclusive nursing
and care of another who is sick or
otherwise helpless.
WICKED NEGLIGENCE.
Every iact done willfully and with
gross negligence, by any person, the
known effect of which, under the cir
cumstances, must be to endanger life,
is, if death ensues, at least manslaugh-
ter A person who chooses to undertake
the charge of a human creature, help
less either from infancy, simplicity
lunacy or other infirmity, is bound to
execute that charge without wicked
negligence, and if such person by wick
ed negligence let's the helpless creature
die, that person is guilty OF manslaugh-
ter.
Mere negligence is not enough; there
must be negligence so great as to sat
isfy jury that the offender had
wicked mind in the sense Of being
reckless and careleGS whether death oc-
CURED or not. Grown VS.. Mary Mich
oils, 13, Cox Grim. cases, 75.) If the &C
cused was guilty Of willful neglect, so
gross and willful that a jury is salts
he'd he must have contemplated the
death of the person under his charge,
then he would be guilty of murder. If
however, the accused was so careless
that the death of such person was oc-
casioned or accelerated by his negli-
gence, though he did not contemplate
1t, he would be guilty of manslaughter.
The cases which have happened Of this
description have been generally cases
or children and servants, where the
duty has been apparent. This is not
such a case.
"It is the province of a jury to say
whether from the way in which the de-
PENDANT treated the deceased, he had
not by way of contract in some way or
other taken upon himself the perform
ance of that duty which the deceased
from helplessneSs or infir1nity was in
capable of doing. It may be that the
deceased would have died from the
disease with which she was at that
time afflicted, but it appears from the
evidence of the witness, DR.. Glidden.
in
without the services of physician ac-
CELEBRATED her death. This would leave
| it to jury to say whether the death
| OF the deceased had been occasioned or
| accelerated by the wicked neglect of
! the defendant. 1t is iRma terial that
the deceased was in d bad state of
health; If the defendant was so unfor-
tunate by reason of his negligence as
| to accelerate her death he must an
| Swer for it.
From all the evidence submitted the
court is of the opinion under the law
| governing such cases that this case
be submitted to jury to pass upon.''
Upon the conclusion of the opinion.
| Mr.. card, attorney for the defendant,
moved that the other complaint against
his client, that charging him with be-
ing an accessory to the procurement of
an abortion, be dismissed, or that an
examination under it be at once pro-
ceeded with. The county attorney be-
ing absent, the court declined to hear
the motion at that time, stating that it
would be taken UP when both counsel
! could be heard.
Mr.. Card announced his intention OF
proceeding by habeas corpus to test
the validity of the courts finding
Pending further proceedings, the de
PENDANT was recommitted to the coun.
| ty Jail.
Minnetonka Tours.