The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-11-16
APPEAL OF DIR. AMES
Voluminous Document Ready for the
Consideration 81 the SUI
preme Court.
sixty-three Assignments Of Error
Are Made and Legal Authori-
ties Cited.


There are errors in this record. Never
in any case did they serve q better pur-
rests DIR. Anes last hope Of freedom
we shall lay bare the conspiracy which
worked this infamous result.
with this sanguines conclusion the
appellants briefs1n the appeal or
former Mayor AZ. Al. Ames, convicted
of receiving bribe, is given to the
supreme court. The document, which
is a strong and logical presentation OF
the defense's case, has been prepared
after careful and extensive research
and a minute study Of the voluminous
evidence Of the famous trial. It Is a
collaboration Of Henry Deutsch, Henry
S. Mead and Frank M. Nye. Upon II
rests DIR. Ames' last hope of freedom.
A copy of the brief was served upon on
the county attorney to-day and First
Assistant County Attorney G. S. Jelley
will at once begin the preparation OF
the states brief The argument of the
case in the supreme court Is set Tor
Dec. "a.
There are sixty-three assignments of
error cited and argued at length. or.
this number those dealing with the
alleged invalidity of the Indictment
due to it's "omnibus'' character take
first rank in Importance. This, of all
the defendants contentious, Is the one
for which the state shows the most
respect ana according 70 the ueleuu-
ants counsel II Is Inc srounu VI WILL l,s;a
new liA"i nus. " nno ofa,.a,,l.e
questlon alone oeer i,ovo e a..S
Woih s aliu iepot 70 $500 ~ els
page aIter page OF. tne pr1el Is ni!eu
with citations therefrom. In conclud-
ing this part of the brief, the attor-
neys say:
Certainly the defendant was deprived OF
every right which Is granted him under
| the constitution and Dill OF rights or the
/ state and OF every opportunity to make
proper defense In the action. He was en-
titled to know upon which speclnc oHense
the state would reiy Tor a conVlctloh anu
accordingly be prepared TO meet II ana IN
refusing to grant MIN that rlgnt the trlal
court committed error Tor which new
trial should be granted.
other Errors Alleged.
Other alleged erors in general subdiv-
isions are: .,
The failure TO allow. sde1ena eI ino.io Na
to quash the lralctlnent on IN, me srounu ~, -.
the unconstitutloHaLty Oh me Jaw un au,4
which the JURORS po Fth stdlu aiiu pesA''
] were drawn. E .E
| The opening up soL-the n1atter OF oul =!
i John T. Layne unlllness TO serve anu lie
iat Ter oisslr s;ssio - ,,,aonoa concern,ne
~, -. ,.rest 10 w. ITO ,,.,s woman
the arrest ol TUG i, s.,l xaaa;ea 80 ~.
-eF:, x,,l,<> eoi1 10 how oil
ponce oihiceis WIZ o. aeiu ~ 40 ~ 49,
eIaroHer Ill ioca1iis l'e "oiitoN -
'oWn. - ~ oa,,o,,,
= ne su.I.ssloi g Sc ~ 49,, -
si9ils ~ % "o,nnn o ~ Ny, ta m,r;+er s+a+es.
-. ..r .a.s o ',,it,eas.oa VIC ave thair eyi
49, 80 .r;1,ins II ,,nder The Win x wa.
sle,e,. -, - ,o.an,, 81 ,Irder ~.
.. les.n iaeni,,s. ha,,sa ~ III me
iaH - ~ ~ 10 their answar
- - 49, T., aa,,,a 20 sae~ Nv III,
soesss.1 ~ 49,,
NJ i1,7,e ~ dafa,,dant,a motto,
Inc laliure ~ sis1ltt eN.s 49,
TO DISMISS anu ms ~ ~ ~ 10.
pass9 Oh ne ~ - ~. ~, a.,
lalieu 70 ifns W. Fl Gfars or srea
was s,,o. 81 ~ fSstI, In tha iniictmen
ineHt sucn as sel. 49, ia4 - $500 ~
4 OF any agissliens $500. .e,.a 20 ts;hos,
alieseo: siveis oiiu .i'o 'atNet" =.
Bribery Evidence Attackeu.
This point is considered al stronf
one andphas been gone into atlength
} In this connection and along the lin,
of the failure of proof it Is urged tina
Gardner. the defendants accomplice
was not corroborated.
The crime Of bribery, says the brief
was not proven because: II.
"F1rst-Ihere IS no PROOF OF an agree
ment or understanding.
"Second-Ihe evidence is more consist
, emit with an lmplleor threat IMAM with a.
implied agreement ana: the evidence ne
+ ing entirely circumstantlal upon TINS POM
1t should have been strong enough TO ex
clude the theory of an implied threat,
the case should have been dismissed.
"Third--The evidence Is just as consist
ent with the TACT tnat ne intended TO col
lect this money without giving or promls
ing any protection OF any KIND, as II
with an implied agreement or understand
ing to protect ana TINS nypo.nesls sno y,
t have been excluded ny the evidence OF u
case dismissed.
Fourth-Ihe evidence OF Garaner ~, pe
ing wholly uncorroDofalea anu pen IN lli A
: OF an accompllce dlo not prove the con