St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-25
CAVITY, j., SAYS so,
And 1t Must Be That Mime
sofa Has Jurisdiction Over
George.
ARRESTED FOR LARCENY
Committed on a Bridge Di-
rectly Over an Island Of
Wisconsin.
CONVICTION SUSTAINED.
A Nice Law Point Which Has
Never Been Before
Court.
CONVICTION SUSTAINED.

In decision handed down by JUS
tice CAVITY yeStD day, the supreme
court decides that it has jurisdiction
in the case of one Alexander George,
who was arrested on the charge Of
larceny midway between Minnesota
and Wisconsin, and appealed the case
on the ground that Minnesota had
not jurisdiction in the matter The
case, which involves a nice point of
law, was argued and submitted last
Tuesday, and Justice Canty sustains
the conviction had in the lower court.
The case was tried by the district
court in Winona. The crime for
which George was tried was commit
ted on the bridge which crosses the
Mississippi river at Winona into Wis
consin, and the exact spot is on the
bridge at a point Immediately over a
little island that belongs to Wisconsin.
The question is whether the courts OF
Wisconsin or Minnesota have Jufls-
diction in the case. The point is one
that has never been before court
before, although there are several
cases on record where the courts have
ruled that a crime committed on
ferry boat on the Mississippi river
might be tried in the courts OF either
state bordering on the river at the
given point.
The title and syllabus of the case
follow:
1aiY
ander George, defendant.
l. The offense of larceny from the
person was committed above an island
on a wagon bridge which crosses the
Mississippi river between Wisconsin
and Minnesota. The island is on the
Wisconsin side of the main channel Of
the river, is separated from the Wis
consin shore by non-navigable water,
is subject to overflow, is submerged
about four months of the year, is
crossed by said bridge, which rises
above high water mark, is a perman-
ent structure, and is supported by piles
driven into the soil of the island.
Held, the state of Minnesota and it's
courts have jurisdiction over said Of
tense.
2. The testimony of a witness for
the state, given on preliminary eX-
animation of the defendant, who was
present and had a reasonable oppor-
tunity to cross-examine the Witness is
competent against the defendant on
his subsequent trial for the same
charge, the witness having died after
the preliminary examination and be-
fore the trial.
8. A stenographer who was present
and took down said testimony at such
examination, on being called to testify
as to the same may use his stenog-
raphic notes to refresh his memory.
4. The objections of the defendant
to such evidence on the trial on the
ground that parts of his cross-exami-
nation were ruled out on such prelimi-
nary examination, and that, there
fore, he did not have consideration in
this court, there being nothing in the
return to show what, if any, parts of
the croSs-eXamination were ruled out
or the character of the same Convic-
ton sustained. CAVITY, J.
CAVITY PARTLY DISSENTS.
State of Minnesota, respondent, VS..
j. Segel, appellant.
1. The charter of Minneapolis au-
enforce ordinances to license and
regulate dealers in second hand
goods"
Held, this and the ordinance passed
pursuant thereto, include dealers in
second hand furniture
2. The. complaint charged that the
defendant was unlawfully engaged in
the business of dealer in second hand
goods, to wit, second hand furniture,
carpets, stoves and divers other ar
ticles and things"
Held, the clause divers other ar
ticles and things" is void for uncer-
tainty, but the prosecution can prove
under such complaint that the defend
ant kept in his store apparently ex-
posed for sale various articles which
held to be included in the general term
second hand furniture" and that he
also so kept second hand TOOLS" Or
der affirmed. CAVITY, j.
(On the last point Canty, J., dis
sentS)
APPEAL DISMISSED.
3. ). Thomas, respondent, VS.. W. B..
Craig, appellant.
An appeal from an order refusing to
dissolve an attachment cannot be pros
ecuted after the attachment has been
released by executing and filing the
statutory bond for that purpose.
The costs incurred on this appeal IN
to the time of such release were trif1ing
In amount, and this court will not hear
and decide the appeal on its merits for
the purpose of determining the right
to such costs.
Each party has since proceeded with
the appeal instead of applying promptly
to have it dismissed.
Held, he has done so by his own folly.
and is not entitled to any costs or dis
bursements thereby incurred, and on
the courts own motion, the appeal is
dismissed without costs or disburse-
ments to either party. So ordered.
CAVITY, J.