The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-01-29

A new trial is granted to Dr. A. A. !
Ames by the supreme court.
not prove the offense charged in the
indictment. AS the court CONSTITUTES
the Indictment, there is little prospect
that the state can ever produce evil
dence to prove it. For the present 1t
stands, and the doctor is under bonds
to appear under this Indictment or any
of the other that are pending, but
it is not likely that the state will move
for trial on the omnibus" Indictment.
Attorneys expected a reversal, but
the ground taken by the court Is a
surprise. All the judges agree In re.
| is divided on the grounds for reversal.
Offense Charged Not Proved.
The majority opinion, written by
Judge Lewis, holds that the indlct-
ment was valid, and there was no err
ever, Judge Elliott should have
granted new trial, because the state
/ failed to prove the offense charged.
Under the Indictment, the state had to
prove one of two things. Either Gard
ner was the agent OF the women, who
! had a common understanding and
represented them in procuring protec-
ton from the mayor, or when ne PAID
the $500 to Ames, a single offense was
committed, the culminationsof the sew
4 eral acts Of the women paying the
4 bribe but on the defendants part a
\ unity of action and unity of intent.
4 AS to the first point, there is no
evidence in the case that the women
s had a common understanding or that
Gardner was their agent. Asgto the
second point, the evidence is that
Gardner Was acting as agent Tor 1Aines
and the payment Of the, $500 was only
an incident in carrying out the
! | YJNI, 1afo o11f n
; charged with conspiracy, so that proof
of a scheme to collect the money does
5 not constitute the offense charged in
1.-The indictment. The . indictment
: charges one .offense, the receipt Of
: bride, but there is a complete failure
: of proof Of the act charged in the IN
? dictment.
Reasons of the Minority.
This opinion is sconcurred in b!
Chief Justice Start and Judge Col
= Inns. Judges Lovely and Brown con
:. cur in the result, but for differen
! reason. They hold that the indict
i ment charged a number OF dlstlncC OF
= lenses. IT subjected the defendant tt
:. an inquisitlon which IS not d necessie'
: In a criminal proceeding. The cour
should either have set the indictmen
}, | aside for uncertainty, or granted tn
motion Of the defense, that the stat
| be required to elect one of the crime
charged, and confine the proof to tina
one Offense.
These two judges hold that ther
was no question about the PROOF. l
the indictment was good, the ev1denc
Twas ample to justify conviction.
From either point Of view the de
Tense wins. One side holds the in
dictment good and the evidence in
sufficient The minority says the evl
dence was strong enough, but the in
dictment was bad.
Indictment Still Stands.
There was some argument over tn
status of the case to-day Some al
torneys claimed that by reversing tn
Judgment, the case is dismissed fc
GOOD, Members Of the court say tn
IS not true. The indictment sti
stands. and it is now up to the count
attorney.
Syllabus of the Case.
The syllabus of the majority opir
ion is as follows: -
State of Minnesota, respondent, VS.. Aide
A. Ames, observation-disclosures:
First-Chapter ISL, law Of 1899, regula
: ing the manner Of drawing jurors
counties having a population Of 100000,
q. general law and is constitutional al
not class legislation.
Second-Under section 1852, gener
statutes 1894, the court, for good caus
may permit challenge TO pc taken All
a Juror is sworn and before the jury
completed. The state having come IN
possession Of new evidence bearing up
the Jurors suitability, moved for perm1
sion to re-examine~ a juror upon the que
ton of actual bias. Held the eau
shown was sufficient and there was
So error in the ruling.
E Third-An indictment charged that I
the 18th day of December. 1901, the
PENDANT (mayor Of the city, did felontous
receive from (naming certain parties a
others unknown who were conductt
houses of Ill repute) the sum OF 5000 up
, the agreement and with the understan
: ing that such persons would be protect
from criminal prosecution for the mon
Of December, 1901. Held, that the indie
n ment stated one offense, it being inferr
that the money was a fund contribut
by the persons named pursuant to a col
mon or a. joint understanding that su
contributors should be protected.
Fourth-The undisputed evidence is II
detectives and police officers accept
money from the women specified IN
Indictment and others in amounts rang1
from SIS to $25 in consideration OF VIA
each person making payment was pro
ised police protection; that the detecti'
and notice officers who received the NOR
were the agents of defendant and not
those making payment; that there was
Joint agreement or understanding betWe
those paying the money; that the >
which was paid over to defendant by
agent in one sum after 1t was paid to
by the women individually was not a g
eral fund contributed with the und
standing that those participating $40