The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-06-06
NORTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT
AFFIRMs THE JUDGMENT OF
THE LOWER COURT,
SENTENCING HIM TO HANG.
NEW DATE FOR THE EXECUTION
WILL NOW HAVE TO BE SET
BY THE GOVERNOR.
Il DECISION
Which Have Made This Long-Fought
Case Famous and VIII Serve
as a Precedent.
Special to the Globe.

Special to the Globe.
BISMARCK, N. D., June 5.-The next to
the last act Of the tragedy begun in Morton
county, two years ago, when Tom Swidensky
shot and killed Mrs. Julia Kent played
today when the supreme court handed down
a decision affirming the judgment of the lower
court, pronouncing sentence of death on Myron
r. Kent, husband of the murdered woman.
The people of the Northwest are familiar
with this case; how Kent disappeared at the
time his wife was killed; how Swidensky con-
fessed he had been hired by Kent to do the
murder; how Kent was traced to Colorado
and captured; how the first trial at Mandan
resulted in a verdict of guilty and sentence of
death; how the supreme court granted
new trial, which took place in Fargo, where
Kent was found guilty the second time, and
in Jail at which place he has lain for months
awaiting the decision of the supreme court
on his second appeal to that tribunal. The
appeal in the case was taken on 139 allega-
tioDs of error by the lower court, and argu-
ment before the supreme court lasted mora
than three days; M. A.. Hildreth and c. F.
Amidon, of Fargo. represented Kent, and
H. G. Voss, of Mandan; Attorney General
:.
for the prosecution.
The syllabus handed down covers all the
salient points in the case and decided, among
other things: First, that, a change Of venue
granted before Jury is empaneled is granted
before the trial is begun; second, that when
the defendant consents in court to a change
of place Of trial, he cannot object to the 1u-
risdicton of the trial court afterward; third,
safo % ha
made after a plea of not guilty and one trial
that plea; fourth, the trial judge may
grant the state peremptory challenge after
1t has exhausted peremptories when the court
denies challenge for cause, causing the state
to exercise sixth peremptory and afterward
allows challenge for cause; fifth, the rule
that all witnesses must be indorsed upon in
formation does not apply to witnesses who
testify at first trial without objection; sixth,
the state has the right to introduce through
an accomplics all matters of probative ma
ture which will make his testimony as strong.
as facts will warrant; seventh, flight and Sc
cretion of the accused may be shown and 1t
is proper to prove this by officers of law;
eighth, cross examination of witness is not
necessarily confined to particular facts rais-
ed on direct examination; ninth, questions
tending to degrade or disgrace a witness may
be asked to test his credibility: tenth, de-
fendant must answer any relevant question
which may tend to convict him for the crime
tried even though it may convict him OF
other crimes; eleventh, 1t is proper to show
by defendant collateral crime, tending to
show a motive for the crime tried; twelfth,
remoteness of previous crime furnishing mo-
tive for crime tried cannot be considered;
thirteenth, defendant as witness cannot re-
fuse to answer questions concerning collateral
crimes when asked to affect credibility; four
teenth, remarks of counsel to jury are within
the discretion Of court, and no error can be
declared thereon except in clear abuse OF
discretion; fifteenth, instructions Of court are
held not vulnerable TO general objections OF
being "argumentative or prejudicial; six
teenth, when Jurors, after being sent out,
separate without knowledge Of the court but
on motion for a new trial; show by affidavit
that no improper indulgences were used, such
separation furnishes no ground for new
trial; seventeenth when defendant consents
that Jurors attend church, claim that the
sermon was prejudicial will not hold. the
sermon being a proper and ordinary emana-
tion from a Christian pulpit not delivered
with the idea of influencing them.
There are some other points decided, but
these are the most important ones. The
evidence is held amply sufficient to justify
the verdict, and the court says both justice
and the law demand that the judgment be
affirmed Kent's time of execution has pass
ed and new date will have to be set.