The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-09-07
LAW IN THE I
A. A. AMES CASE.
Continued from First Page.

and procedure and apparently attach no
more Importance to the manner OF pro-
cedure, than to the substantial
party as established by fair trial.
There is a close analogy between cases
like the one at bar and an indictment for
receiving stolen property, which has been
stolen from different parties at different
times. It is well established that an in
dictment for such an offense may charge
as one offense, the receiving at one time
of goods which have been stolen from Diff
ferent owners at different times.
Validity of the Indictment.
"There are several cases which in prtn-
ciple sustain the validity Of this indict-
ment. I am willing to rest this decision
upon the authority Of United States v.
Scott "A Fed. 2l3, decided by Judge Taft
in the United States circuit court in 1895.
The indictment there under consideration
was for the violation Of the act to regu-
late and improve the civil service OF the
United States. Section II, provided that
no senator or representative, ETC., shall
directly or indirectly solicit or receive, or
be in any manner concerned In soliciting
or receiving any assessment, subscription,
or contribution for political purposes
whatever, from any officer, clerk or en-
ploye of the United States, or any depart
ment, branch or bureau thereof, or from
the treasury Of the United States
Scott the collector Of internal revenue,
was indicted for receiving money in vio-
lation Of this act The indictment con-
tanned several counts, each Of which
charged him with receiving specific sum
on certain date from numerous people.
The seventh count charged that on
certain date he 'unlawfully was then and
there knowingly concerned in receiving
an assessment of $1,000, from a great
many, to-wit, fifty persons, whose names
are to the grand jury aforesaid unknown,
which said persons were then and there
officers Of the United States, to-wit, duly
appointed and acting as United States in
| ternal revenue storekeepers, internal
revenue storekeepers' gagers, within and
! for the fifth internal revenue district for
! the state of Kentucky, for political pur-
pose, to-wit., for the use of the political
party, ETC.
| "This Indictment was held good, Judge
Taft saying that settled principles OF
| criminal law permit the prosecutor to treat
as one offense a single act involving sew
eral different and similar violations OF the
law There is little, If any authority
says the learned judge, to sustain the
| proposition that it is not competent to
join crimes of the character described
| committed by one single act or series OF
| a cts at the same time and place, in a sin
gle count That case and the one at
bar do not differ in principle. 1t Is i'm
material whether the money was collected
at one time after getting the parties all
together or by visiting the parties at or
about the same time and collecting from
each individual. The result is the same.
A gross sum is realized by assessment,
which in bulk Is turned over to the de-
| PENDANT at one time and accepted by him
with the understanding then entertained
that the parties who have contributed to
the fund will be protected and permitted
to continue an illegal business
No Reason for Repeating Trial.
''Under the recent decision in the case
| Of State vs. Fred w. Ames, all the
| evidence which was received In the case
at bar would have been properly received
under the present indictment, had the
state been required to elect one OF the So
called causes of action I am therefore
asked to grant a a new trial, require an
election. receive the same evidence and
after a long delay, arrive again at the
noint where we now are. Only violation
of the substantial rights Of the defendant
would justify this, and find no SUCH Vio-
lation in this record
1.-The statutes of this state provide that
NO indictment is insufficient, nor can
a trial judgment or other proceeding
5 thereon, be affected by reason OF a defect
or imperfection in matter of form which
does not tend to prejudice the substantia!
rights of the defendant upon the merits.
the verdict should stand