The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-01-12
NOT AN INDICTMENT AGAINST
THEM THAT WOULD STAND
THE TEST.
THE LAST TWO DISPOSED OF.
RULING OF A WEEK
AGO.
GEN. cHILDs QUITS THE CASE.
ducing Any Testimony, and a
Verdict for Defense Entered.

Attorney General CnllQS OlQnC nave
to spend much Of the states time in
his effort to help County ATTORNEY An
derson secure a conviction of William
Dawson on the charge of an over-draft
OF $4,000. He was on hand with an
expression Of the supreme court, which
he presumably thought would help out
the prosecution, but Judge Willis held
1t was not a decision of the supreme
court, consequently the ruling made
by the court last week, that the state
must select the items in the bill on
which it would base it's case, was held
good again yesterday. Gen. Childs
didn't like the ruling of Judge Willis
and withdrew from the case, so County
Attorney Anderson gave up, too. The
indictment fell, as did the remaining
one, and William Dawson and William
Dawson Jr. were free men.
Mr.. Anderson made a short statement
of the case to the jury showing what
ne expected to prove. He would show
that Mr. Dawson\ after his account
had been largely overdrawn, had drawn
checks against the bank without any
authority from the governing board
On July II, 1896, his account was over
drawn 100000.
c. D. O'Br1en objected to the intro
duction of any testimony on the ground
OF the insufficiency Of the Indictment.
The objection was overruled on the
ground of a former adjudication.
Mr.. OBr1en moved that the state
elect upon what item of the indict-
ment 1t proposed to stand.
This was the same point made bv
the defense in the case against Will
liam Dawson Jr., and which was ruled
upon unfavorably to the state by judge
Willis
Attorney General Childs proceeded
to argue the point of law from the
standpoint of the state. He thought
the case Of the state VS.. Holmes set
tied the matter. He was one of the
counsel In that action.
The court inquired how the precise
point arose in the Holmes case
Mr. Childs said that, through some
defect in the Indictment, the state had
to proceed along the line of common
law larceny. Mr.. Childs read from
the opinion Of the supreme court in
the Holmes case. In substance. if the
state was compelled to elect as to ,
single item, 1T would often be impos-
s1ble to prove a larceny covering q
series of offenses, small in single
amounts, but large in the aggregate.
The state had agreed in this case that
the acts committed during a period of
SIX months constituted a continuing
oHense. 1t was the intention of the
supreme court to lay down the law so
explicitly that there might be no
doubts as to its position in like cases
hereafter. One Of the members OF the
court who wrote the opinion COM
municated with a member Of the SUI
preme court of Massachusetts in this
matter. The view there taken was
that the state could show a series Of
embezzements, and could not be COM
PEELED to elect. Other district courts
OF the state had accepted without uues-
ton the views laid down by the SUI
preme court In the case of the state
VS.. Haugan. recently tried, no ques-
ton. was raised by the defense as to
the states rights.
The Court-Was any motion made
that the state should elect in anv of
the cases you cite?
Mr.. Childs--No, sir
The Court-Then the opinion written
by the court is a mere literary ESSAY
on an abstract question.
Mr.. Childs retorted that the matter
had been brought squarely before the
supreme court, and a reading of the
opinion would so show
The Court-Where is there anything
in the statutes which holds that a
number of separate offenses can be
Jumped together and termed a single
continuing offense? How can a court
say you can convict on an aggregate
Of number Of offenses when you can
not convict positively on any one of
them? Is 1T not a logical absurdity?
Mr.. Chtlds thought not. 1t was often
most difficult to prove a single offense
of many covering a series of years.
What good was the statute if a series
of offenses could not be regarded as a
continuing offense?
Mr.. O'Brien said that to his recol-
lection, from 1866 up to this time. the.
nisi prius courts had always stood to
the doctrine of election. Was it pos
sible that the legislature had slept all
these years until the Holmes case had
sprung up? The supreme court in
this case had gone outside it's juris-
diction to take up a question which
was not before it. He had heard of
government by injunction-he now OBJ
jected to SANDER by Indictment He
left it to the supreme court to decide
this question when it came squarely
before it-not before.
The Court think we should be
wanting In that profound reverence
which we entertain for the supreme
court If we should select remarks made
in the course of judicial opinions. not
necessary to the decision of the case
in hand as expressing the mature deci-
sion of that court to overthrow the
landmarks of the ancient law and
propositions heretofore deemed by the
wisest Of mankind to be the great
bulWarkS Of the liberty of citizens ac-