The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-06-11

of a verdict within few hours. Outside
OF the jury and the court officers there
were less than ten people present and
half of those were reporters.
judge Harrison went home about 6
o'clock, leaving word that he would re-
turn at o'clock: He announced then
also that If the jury had not agreed he
would return at about II O'Clock.
All was silent in the jury room when
he returned after dinner. but something
made his honor wait in his chambers.
Gardner. who had been sitting on the
marble stairway with a friend. made his
way to the court room. The attorneys
appeared and took their accustomed e
places, also Clerk Royce and other OFF,
GERS. Finally the tall form of Judge Har-
rison emerged from his chamber and then
the small crowd OF watchers realized
that tc was about to receive the jury.
It might be a verdict and yet 1t might
be that some further instruction was
wanted.
A glimpse at the first Juror as he
emerged from the gloom of the corridor
i1to the yale electric light Of the court
room told tile whole story. At that mo-
1nent Gardper knew that it was con-
vietion
Clerk Royce polled the jury and re-
ceived thu message which he handed to
Judge Harrison.
I'VE, the jury, in the above entitled
action find the defendant guilty Of re-
ceiying a bribe," read Mr.. Royce, in a
clear voice, after receiving the verdict
from Judge Harrison.
is this your verdict, gentlemen" he
asked ir;pre ssively
lit is came the reply in unison.
so say you all?''
I've de-"
through the proceedings, and if he felt
any emotion he had them under such
excellent control that he did not betray
them to the half score of eyes which
we're narrowly watching him.
1.-The prisoner will be remanded to the
custody Of the sheriff. ordered Judge
Harrison, and the deputies who had been
In charge o. the jury turned their at
tention to the defendant. 81
Attorney Mead, appearing for Gardner,
moved for stay Of sentence, and gave
notice for a motion for a new trial.
Gardeners bail was fixed at $4,000.
The jury took but one ballot, and was
but less than four hours. +
The Close and the Charge.
W. W. Erwin, one Of the attorneys for
xhe defense. delivered his closing address
yesterday afternoon. At it's conclusion
Judge Harrison charged the jury and sent
xhem out. He said, in part:
The defendant is accused of receiving
bride while a special policeman, upon the
understanding that he was to protect Ed
wards and Crossman, who conducting
Q winding game. Was the defendant
police officer? Did the defendant receive the
sum Of $500 to influence his official acts?
These are the TWO questions you are to de-
eide.
he 1afo oFo and
did receive while acting such $500 from
Edwards and Crossman to protect them, then
he would be guilty of the charge named in
the Indictment.
The only way for you to dispose Of this
ease Is, first, to take up and consider the
question: Was Gardner, on or about the 18th
of November, 1901, the time that it is al
legged he accepted a bribe, a special police
officer of the city of Minneapolis? If you
ind that he was not, then you need go no
further, and should return verdict Of not
guilty.
But if you find that he was such special
police officer at said time, then you should
next take up and consider the question
whether not the amount charged, $500,
or any other amount of money, was paid by
Crossman and Edwards or either of them to
the defendant Gardner, on or about that day;
and If you find that it not, then you
should return verdict of not guilty.
If, however, you should find that it was,
then you should consider the next PROPOSE
Hon, as to whether or not it was paid upon
the understanding or agreement that the de-,
PENDANT should perform any of the acts al
legged in the Indictment, to-wit, that he would
furnish to them police protection, or that
he would refrain from their arrest. that
he would conceal the fact that they were
operating confidence and swindling games
within the city of Minneapolis. And if you
find that this money was not paid upon any
such understanding or agreement, you should
and the defendant not guilty.
But, if you should find that while the de-
PENDANT a police officer $500 or any other
sum of money paid to him by said Cross
man and Edwards, or either of them, at or
about the time alleged, and that it was paid
upon the understanding or agreement that
the defendant should afford to them police
protection or freedom from arrest or that
he would refrain from arresting them on &C
count Of any swindlng or confidence games
or tricks which they might perform within
the city Of Minneapolis, or that he would
conceal the fact that they were confidence
men, then you should find the defendant
guilty as charged in the Indictment.
Gentlemen OF the jury, in this, as in all
other criminal cases, the defendant is pre-
stunned to be innocent Of the crime charged
Sn the indictment, and that presumption Of
znnocence remains with him. and follows him
s7ntil such time as the state has by competent
testimony proven the essential elements of
che crime as have defined them to you, be-
Sond reasonable doubt. To put it in an
either form, the burden rests upon the state
20 produce sufficient competent evidence to
overcome the presumption Of innocence and
all evidence introduced on behalf of the de-
PENDANT, and to satisfy your minds beyond a
teasonable doubt of the truth of all the
essential elements of the crime as I have
defined them to you before you can find the
defendant guilty.