The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1896-06-11

ness is allowed to testify to the fact
that prisoner is an ex-convict, or that
the defendant has been previously ar
rested for a misdemeanor or a felony.
The prisoner if placed on the stand
may be questioned in regard to this
matter, but of course cannot be COM
PEELED to answer. The law is very ex
plicit on this point, and it would be
natural to suppose that the peoples
attorneys would obey the law, but on
the contrary they have been the first
to violate the spirit Of the statute.
This is done by inserting the fact in
the indictment, stating that the de-
PENDANT was in such and such prison
on such a date, thus bringing it to the
attention of the jury and prejudicing
them, as it must do, at the outset
against the accused. One of the judges
of Cook county severely censured this
practice and issued an order prohibit
ing it in the future in all cases tried
before him, and it is to be hoped that
the other judges sitting on the crimi-
nal bench will do likewise. 1t is to be
regretted that such practices should
prevail in any court of justice. The
motive governing the prosecuting at
torney's office to thus violate the law
is purely financial one, as in that
state they receive the sum of twenty
five dollars for every conviction Sc
cured in addition to their salary. 1t
cannot be claimed that it is done in
the interest of justice, or for the pro-
lection of society for longer period
by securing the imposition of heavier
sentence, for the indeterminate SEN
tence law acts as an effectual estOppel.
It is almost incredible that such things
are occurring in our courts, but it is
not only true in criminal cases but also
in civil trials, as an incident which oc-
Cured lately in the metropolis of the
west proves. A woman sued the city
for damages on account of an injury
caused by a defective sidewalk. In
the first trial the compliments attor.
ney caused a sensation by objecting to
the jury, charging that ten of the jury
men were either employees or ex-
employees of the city, and this being
proven the Judge dismissed the jury
On the second trial, which took place
few days ago. the city attorney pro
duced thirteen witnesses who testified
that the sidewalk was in good condi
ton. After the jury had left the court
room the Judge, unable to restrain hi:
indignation at the manner in which
the case had been tried, characterized
the proceedings as unheard of, and de
livered the following opinion:
This will be the end of this case. Jur.
bribing is bad enough, but such
monstrous state of affairs as has beef
disclosed by this trial never imagined
It has been shown that school TO
subornation of perjury has been estab
lished in the city attorneys office.
have never heard of anything like il
and it was with the greatest reluctanc
[ refrained from expressing an opinio
during the trial. Do you suppose tina
man living three miles from tn
place where the accident to the plain
tiff in the case occurred, and who wa
never subpenaed until three week
ago, could tell the condition of tina
sidewalk? He was liar from begi1
ming to end. If l had known the tur
this case was going to take l Woul
have had police inspector here. l
this case the city has come forwar
' with twelve perjured witnesses.
s;oKGQ1R AlX9jSx1: