The Saint Paul globe., 1904-10-21
AYES FACES JURY
FOR FOURTH TIME
Continued From First Page


mayor is convicted. Attorney Cary as
serts that no man who has been con-
victed of an infamous crime can sit on
jury.
1t appears that one of the members
of the jury was tried before Judge Kerr
When he was on the municipal bench
and sentenced to pay a fine for a viola
tion of city ordinance. Prior to that
time he was accused of stealing a cow.
He was tried and the jury disagreed.
Before another trial could be had the
matter was settled out of court, and
should the former mayor be convicted
the supreme court will have to pass
upon the question OF what constitutes
an Infamous crime"
The juror was arrested about twelve
years ago and except for the violation
of a health ordinance has not been
| convicted of any offense. Judge Kerr
says he didn't recognize him when he
examined the candidates, for the jury.
Jury Wants Light
Yesterday morning the jury informed
the court that it desired to have GER
tain portions of the charge read. The
| judge was in a quandary. He had per-
mitted a newspaper reporter to take
the only copy of the charge and got
busy with the telephone. After calling
many persons he was enabled to locate
a man who could find the charge which
had been tucked away in the desk Of
scribe on a morning paper and it was
brought to him about one minute before
10 o'clock. The jury had propounded
its questions in writing and Judge Har-
rison proceeded to answer them.
The first question was that of the
definition of an accomplice. On this
point Judge Harrison said:
An aecomplice is one who knowingly,
voluntarily and with common intent with
the principal offender unites in the com
mission of a crime; one who knowingly
and purposely aids abets, or cou1lsels the
commission of a crime is an accompflce.
In other words, the party must know
the crime is to be committed, and must
aid or abet in its commission, and he must
do it purposely and knowingly you
wish to write that definition down, you
may do so.
A Knotty Question
The second question was whether
the definition must be applied to the.
crime alleged in the indictment and no
the affirmative. Judge Harrison said
witness might be an accomplice in
the commission of some other crime
but in the case at bar his testimony
would not have to be corroborated.
This permitted the admission of the
testimony of Gardner and Norbeck.
The third question was, "Must the
defendant in this case stand as prin-
cipal to establish the fact of an ac-
complice?" The answer of the court
was there was only one crime charged,
that of accepting $40 from a woman,
and in order that "a man should be an
accomplice he must be an accomplice
in the commission of the crime.
Judge Harrison told the jurors that
they were to weigh the testimony of
alleged accomplices the same as that
of the other witnesses.
Cary Makes Protest
"The state has introduced testimony
outside of accomplices," said the court.
of the commission of this crime, and as
to the weight or sufficiency of this evi-
dence you are the sole judges"
Mr.. Cary entered a vigorous eXcep-
ton and the jury retired.
At 2:30 in the afternoon the jury re-
ported it would not be able to agree if
it remained out a year, but the judge
declined to dismiss the inquisitors.
Yesterday morning r. H. Grinsted,
one of the jurors was taken i'll and
by order of the court a physician was
summoned to attend him. BY noon he
had recovered to such an extent he
was enabled to go to dinner at the ex-
pense of the county.