The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1896-04-09
TIE PETITION DENIED,
Judge Webber States the SubSCrib-
ing of a Name was Suffi-
Cient for an Oath.
Also Contends That There Was No
Collusion Between Pierce
And Peck.

entered an order in the office OF the
clerk of the district court of Brown
county denying the petition for a writ
of corem aaobss in the case of the State
of Minnesota VS.. Michael NJ. Madigan,
and as result the case will again go
to the Supreme Court. Judge Web
ber contends that both S. L. Pierce
and H. J. Peck, attorneys for the
State AND prosecution are honorable
men and of excellent character, and
that there is or was nothing to show
that they were in collusion to bring
about the verdict in question. He al
so states that no fraud was shown on
the part of Peck, but the only matter
complained of was that he did not in
troduce proper evidence at the proper
time on the trial of the action, a differ
once of opinion which the Judge says
is always likely to arise in criminal
case between counsel and client.
Judge Webber also states that the
procedure by writ of corem ,aobis is
practically obsolete, and that it was
granted only where defendants had
plead guilty under duress with mob
threatening to lynch the defendant.
He says that it don't go at this late
date. Speaking of the failure to ad-
minister the oath on the affidavit on
which the conviction was secured the
Judge states that the subscribing of
the name would be sufficient to con-
stitute perjury. The decision in full
is as follows:
On the 9th day of January, 1894,
the above named defendant was duly
convicted of the crime of perjury and
was, thereafter, duly sentenced to i'm
prisonment in the State prison for the
tern OF three years and three months
The defendant thereafter, made mo-
ton for a new trial and said motion
was by order denied on the 9Th day OF
March, 1894; and said order was duly
affirmed by the Supreme Court of the
State of Minnesota, on the 18th day
of June, 1894, State vs.. Madigan, 81
MINI. 1926. The defendant now moves
"for an order vacating the verdict o1
the jury, and vacating, setting aside
and annulling, and declaring, and ad.
judging, and determining the judg'
ment and conviction in the aboye en-
titled action void, and that your peti
toner be granted new trial herein
and that writ of coreno ,aobis issue
out of said court to inquire into the
facts alleged in said petition and aft
davits and settled case and all pro
ceedings in said cause"
Said motion was made on petition
of the defendant and the affiavits O
w. D. Finn, George Houghmaste
and Tillson Tibbetts. On the hearing
the State, appearing by the county at
torney, offered in coincidence the aft
davit of S. L. Pierce, to which the de
fendant objected on the ground tina
the same is incompetent and irrele
want and that no issue is joined which
objection was overruled and the de
fendant excepted to said ruling, ane
said affidavit was received in evidence
The State also offered in evidence tn
affidavit of II. j. Peck, to which tn
defendant objected on the grounds
first, that it is incompetent and tha
the affidavit of Peck cannot be re
ceived as he was attorney for the de
fendant, which objection was over
ruled, and the defendant excepted tt
said ruling, and said affidavit was re
ceived in evidence.
In my opinion the writ corena raobi
has no place in the practice of thi
State as it's place is supplied by mo
ton, and no such writ is referred to il
any decision of the Supreme Court o
this State. It was said by the Su
preme Court of the United States
more than sixty years ago, that tn
latter mode had superseded the form
or in the British Courts Picket VS.
Ledgerwood, Pet. 143; Freeman OF
Judgments e Ed) 1888. Even if th'
writ of corem nobis can, in any case
be resorted to in this State. l am 0
the opinion that the case at bar is no
such case. All the facts which th'
defendants seeks to show under tn
writ we're or could have been raiset