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

a 409, 1t was stated that the Fundamental
principle Of the constitutional provision
is that the accusation, Their by In
dlctment or information, q be suffi
cient and specific fairly !, apprise the
accused of the nature of the charge
against him that he may know what t.
answer and be prepared to meet the exac
charge against him. and that the record
may show. as far as may be, for what he
S IN put In Jeopardy
II the allegations Of the indictment meal
that the persons paying the money acted
Jointly in making an agreement with de-
iendant and in pursuance Of such agree
ment the money was collected for the
month Of December and paid to defendant
then but one offense Is set forth. On the
other hand, If the natural inference tc
be drawn from the entire language Of the
bill Is that the parties paying the money
were not acting together, had no joint
agreement or understanding as between
themselves. and each one paid the amount
for individual protection Of herself, with
out regard to whether or not the others
paid, and without reference to the amount
of the total payment, then each specific
payment Of money by each particular per-
con would constitute a separate and dis
tinct transaction and offense.
One Offense Charged.
Giving. defendant the benefit of the con-
stitutimal and statute requirements, and
constituting the language of the indictrne emit
literally in his favor. we are OF the Opln-
ION that, the crime charged Is one offense,
viz, the receiving of a bride Of $500, which
amount was contributed by the various
parties mentioned and others unknown.
The substance Of the charge Is, as speci-
fed in the first part Of the bill, that on the
18th day Of December, 1901, defendant did
feloniously receive from the parties named
and others unknown. the sum Of $500 upon
the agreement and understanding that
such parties would be protected from
criminal prosecution for the month Of De-
cember, 1901. 1t is not directly charged
that the parties to be protected entered
into a joint agreement between them
selves, or that the money was contribu-
ton to fund, but such is the inference
from the language used. All that IS
stated thruout the body Of the bill as to
the locality Of each of the persons, the
occupation carried on, and the statement
that each was TO- be protected in such
place, are not inconsistentGwith the gen
aEal allegation already mentioned; nor is
the statement that the exact amount of
money received from each of the persons
was to the grand jury unknown necessar-
lily in conflict with the view that the
money had been paid by each in pursuance
of a joint agreement These particulars
are inserted to show the nature of the oc-
.cupation Of each person contributing to
the fund, and emphasizes the fact that
SdCl Contributor waste ne prOteCCeQ. Inc
indictment Is not rendered uncertain and
indefinite from the fact that it states that
part of the money was paid by persons to
the grand jury unknown 1t was certain
and definite with reference to- six persons
specifically named, and If the crime
charged is that the parties specifically
named and others whose names
are unknown entered into an agree
1nent for their protection, and In pursu-
ance thereof the money was paid, there
ts but one offense charged. The motion
to quash, and the motion to elect. were
properly overruled. 8
ls Evidence Sufficient
Fourth-We now come to more serious
question, viz: Does the evidence sustain
the offense charged in the indictment?
The principal witness on behalf Of the
state was Irwin A. Gardner, who was at
the time the offense is alleged to have
been committed, a student in defendants
medical office, and his testimony was to
the effect that defendant came to him and
proposed to gather what he termed "a
campaign fund.-, that he was directed to
80 TO the various places Of resort in the
city and make a monthly collection from
each person, according to her cIrcum- |
stances, in consideration of which pay
ments the parties paying should be pro- |
teoted from arrest; that in pursuance Of
this conversation defendant detailed for
Gardners assistance several detectives |
and police officers Of the city with whose
help he was to locate the, various parties !
Christopher Norbeck, a city detective, |
gave substantial assistance in locating the |
women and in collecting the money. De-
PENDANT directed Norbeck and the other
men to take their instructions from Gard
nor. Gardner received money from each
woman independently, about one-haIf of
the amount from the first to the fifth,
and the other half from the fifteenth to
the twentieth Of the month. Several off
the women were called by the state and
each testified to having paid Gardner a
sum or money ranging from SIS to S25
with the understanding that she would be
protected. After receiving the entire
amount, about $500, Gardner paid the
same over in one SUM 20 defendant
:. The state has dyan oedztMo PROPOSE,
sons IN support OF Its claim that the Of
tease charged In the Indictment is sun
ported by the evidence. First; that Gard
ner was acting as agent of the women and
represented them in receiving their con
trtbutions to the fund being collected for
their benefit, and in paying the amount
fhereof over to the defendant Second,
that when Gardner handed defendant. II
his office, the roll Of bills Of $780, as tes-
titled to by him and the mayors private
secretary, Thomas Brown, q single and
distinct offense was committed in receiy-
Ing bride Of $500. and that this act was
the elimination Of several acts Of other
people, but on defendants part there was
unity OF action and unity of intent -
Gardner as Arnes' Agent.
The undisputed evidence on the part of
the state is that Gardner was delegated
by defendant as his agent, with power
to arrange with as many OF the women ,
as 1t was possible to get money from
--------- J.