The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-01-09
IN. KING GOES OYER
Judge Simpson Orders His Commit:
ment and He Is Taken to
Saltwater.
Fight for a New Trial Not Yet
Abandoned Supreme Court
s.S Syllabus.

Nathaniel w. King is now an inmate Of
the state penitentiary at saltwater.
Despite the objection Of counsel, Judge
Simpson could see no valid reason why
Norm" should not begin to serve out his
sentence, and this morning ordered his
commitment
This afternoon the prisoner, in charge
of Deputies Jones and 10th, left Min
neapolis sfors saltwater and tonight will
be his first behind the bars Of the big
prison. . s.
Is the object Of attack by the King forces
and they are fighting to the last ditch.
Attorney F. r. HubachekS this morning
| appeared before Judge Simpson and
asked that the order denying q new trial
be opened, that the Judgment be set
aside, and that the original IN otion7sfor, q
| new trial be hereard. sts,ssssss III
Judge Simpson stated that he wished
to grant the defendant any and every
right to which he was entitled, and that
he would gladly hear the application Of the
defendants counsel. but that the Same
must be submitted in writing. the subject
at least partially briefed and authorities
submitted. Mr.. Hubachek agreed and
the hearing will be given within the next
few days. :s4t1% .s
! At this juncture the defendants alto
ney asked that his client be allowed to
u
court upon the application. The court
could not see the matter from the defend
ants view point and ordered the COM
mitn ent. e.@s-
| The new trial is urged upon the affida-
wits Of Frank w: King, Harry A Gates,
John Hart and Thomas Murphy, all to the
effect that the states chief witness,
BILLY Edwards, did not tell the truth
in regard to the. King case and after the
trial admitted as much; .Besidessthe al
hdavits introduced this morning, Mr.. Hubs
achek announced that he would probably
introduce one Of his own, relating to what
Edwards had told him. in regard to the
case! These affidavits were not part of
the record in the trial and for this rea-
son the supreme court refused to admit
them in the consideration Of the case
King Was Calm. " .ss.,..- g..
The defendant accepted the decision of
the court that he must go at once to Still
water with perfect calmness and after
returning to the Jail he remarked to a
Journal reporter: '.-.E,.t.
Il haven't much to say. That has all
been done long ago. I am an American
citizen, or at least I have been, and If
1t is the law that I shall~go, why that's
enough I am going to make the best of
it. l feel the worst on account OF my
family" ~ :. -. ri; %as. : 4r,s.tS3
The morning was spent by. the prisoner
in receiving and. bidding good-by to his
family and friends. He could not avoid
some show of emotion and several times
he was obliged to wipe away the tears.
Supreme Courts Decision. -.s@
|. The supreme court this morning handed
down it's opinion in the King case, signed
by Justice Brown. It. goes at length into
the case;T the review. covering twenty two
folio pages. The defense is ruled against
on every point. The trial court is criti-
cized for the length to which it permitted
the cross examination of, M. L. Cohen,
who testified concerning the value; of
/ the diamond, and: the opinion. says that
| ''it seems somewhat. difficult to. under
permitted the states attorney to go into
| the character of the members Of the fam
lily 5of this witness" However; the court
does not see in this anything to . the
prejudice Of the defendant. %'* r."
Use Of Liquor by Jury. ~, +.
AS to the alleged use Of liquor by the
jury, the court holds that this was not
material in the absence of any evidence
to show that members Of the jury were
lncapacitated for proper consideration Of
| the case.,, -l.-.- 80 .....,....4.. =
Reviewing the evidence, the court holds
that it was sufficient to sustain the YER
, dict, that it proves the theft Of the dia-
=, mond by the principals, and accessory
knowledge Of the theft on the part OF
King. With regard to Billy Edwards
1 testimony, the court says: :.r:..&&-.-
Defendant contends, and not wholly
! without reason that the witness Edwards,
! upon whose testimony, the state largely
i depended for conviction, is wholly. unre-
reliable and unworthy Of belief. It may
: be conceded, in accordance with defend
/ ants condition., that Edwards was an
I all-alRund thief and confidence man; that
he. Had been convicted repeatedly of
1or1xy 81 3ofr- 1NorJ
been a lawless character for a number Of
years, but whether he was entitled to
credit. whether his testimony worthy
of belief, was a question for the jury to
i determine Witnesses were called to con-
tradict him; and they testified that he
!, attempted to sell the diamond to one
Murphy. 4. But whether, he attempted to
do so is not Of serious Importance as the
fact remains that he did not sell 1t to
him. It is also claimed that he at
, tempted to sell it at Moss Bros. saloon al
the time he claims to have delivered IT. tc
Johnson was called and testified, to that
fact. This witness was another all
;. around thief and ex-convict, and proba.
Z bly, as reliable and as credible as the wit
ness Edwards. -. s... e. ~
The syllabus follows: sts%S
: First an indictment charging the accused
fact should a]ege facts constituting the felony
with the same degree of certainty as though the
person who committed it were alone indicted
The Indictment under which defendant con
victed.ts held sufficiently definite and certain il
this respect. .37l.g -. sef4
. seccnd-Defendant offered to show on the tria
that a witness called by the state con
:. tirmed user Of opium, had been addicted to itt
for years, ard that such use renders the per
:. son unreliable. in his statements and prone tt
I falsehood The evidence was excluded by thu
e trial court. and the ruling Is held not in error
~ The witness was before the court and jury: hi
appearance. demeanor and the manner In whiel
he gave his testimony, whether straightforward
= truthfulness or an unbalanced mind were sui
fcient from which his credibility could be deter
. mined. s@5E
= Third--The extent to which the cross-examina
q ton of the witnesses may so for the purpose o
testing his credibilty. showing his bias, pref
udice or hostility. rests in the sound discretion
. of the trial court The fact that such exam
u nation is permitted to go beyond REASONABLY
r limits is not reversible error, where the wttnes
e thus examined gave testimony pertinent t
n any material issue in the case.
: Fourth--It is discre ttonary right and dut
Is Of trial court. in the interests Of the orderl
y conduct of proceedings before it. to rebuke an
e reprimand overzealous and overwIl1ng witnesse
= when they constantly attempt to inject eyidenc
z into the case not called for by questions put t
them; and its action in that behalf. where no re
i Elections are cast upon the credibilfty OF tn
III witness does not constitute reversible error
:, unless clear abuse Of discretion be shown.
:, misunderstanding moved for a new trial on th