Little Falls weekly transcript. (Little Falls, Morrison Co., Minn.) 1894-19??, 1896-04-17
VERDICT SET ASIDE.
Judge Searle Grants a Motion
to That Effect New
5%3. Trial.

to That new
s3 Trial. tx
:, = s. --. 4
Friday morning the motion III
Attorney Lyon to have the verdict
in the case of E. A. Flood set aside
and a new trial granted, was heard
by Judge Searle. Mr. Lyon repre-
sented. that th-re were grounds for
doubt whether the verdict was In
accordance with the testimony, and
that there was serious doubt OF the
defendants guilt He called atten-
ton to the fact that jury had urged
the court to exercise leniency; that
the members had since signed a
petition for the defendants pardon,
and that the citize1s generally had
signed such Il petition. He urged
that the testimony and facts In the
case would warrant the court In
granting the motion.
County Attorney Rhodes stated
that he could notclaim that the jury
had done more than it's duty, and he
believed the courts information on
the case was such that no remarks
from him were necessary. He said
nothing directly opposed to the
granting OF the motion.
Judge Searle then made the foil
ing order.
DISTRICT COURT,
MORRISON COUNTY.
State of Minnesota Va. E. A. Flood.
The motion of the defendant for q
new trial in the above entitled action,
based upon the minutes OF the court
come on to be heard before me, at
the court house, in the city Of Little
Falls, Minnesota, on tie 9Th day of
April, A. D., 1895, and having duly
considered the same, and being duly
ad vised in the premises; 1t Is ordered
that said motion be, and the same
hereby is granted.
By the Court:
D. B. SEARI.E.
District Judge.
NOTE-This is a prosecution
against the defendant for forgery, or
for passing an alleged forged noee
upon the william Deering Machine
company, for whom he was acting
as agent in this city at the time said
forgery is alleged to have occurred.
1t is unnecessary here to review the
facts upon which the state relied Tor
a conviction, except to say that as
to the act of forgery, itself, there
was but one witness upon the part
of the state, and that the alleged
maker of the note In controversy,
who testified that he did not sign
the same. Aud on the other hand'
the defendant testified that the party
whose name appeared upon the note
did in fact sign the note by making
his mark thereon; and another repu-
table witness, by the name OF Heroux
also testified that he was present at
the time the note was signed. and
saw the alleged maker thereof exc
cute the same. The other testimony
upon which the state relied for con-
yiction was the alleged admissions
and confessions OF the defendant.
In granting the defendants mo-
ton for new trial desire to briefly
state my reasons therefor. The case
was tried at the present term vi
court before a jury of more than Or
binary intelligence. who, after long
elaboration upon the testimony,
decided that the defendant was
guilty of the offense charged. This
result, must confess, was some
what OF a surprise to me, as it was
to many VINO listened to the evil
dence given upon the trial, and in
passing Judgment upon the verdict
of guilty, I took into consideration
the facts have alluded to, and gave
the defendant a light sentence for so
grave and serious a charge. arriv-
ing at the verdict they did, the jury, L
am constrained to believe, took into
consideration certain admissions
made by the defendant when upon
the witness stand, as to the other
dealings with the Machine company,
which were doubtledly OF a criminal
character. His testimony proved
that he was defaulter to the COM
pany with whom he was employed,
and for whom he was acting in the
capacity OF agent; that the note in
question had in fact been paid to HIM
by the alleged maker thereof, when
he turned the same over to the COM
pany as collateral to his indebtedness.
This fact he admitted. and it perhaps
largely Influenced the jury in reach
ing it's verdict. There were also
other charges of forgery on the part
- A.. ~,ofon<1on+ 90 RI nthor nnfoS