The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-09-15
EX.MAYOR AMES "
MUST Be TRIED
Judge Harrison Refuses to Dis.
miss the Ten Cases Against
Him.

Declaring that he believes the case
against DR.. A. A. Ames should be tried
until a jury has determined the guilt
or innocence Of the accused, Judge A.
M. Harrison this morning handed down
a decision denying the motion made by
County Attorney f. H. Boardman for
the dismissal Of the ten cases pending
against the former mayor.
The decision is written in decidedly
direct style, and in reciting the his
tory Of the case, says that, while the
decision by which DR.. Ames was once
convicted was reversed by the supreme
court on a technicality, the reversal
Sin no manner affected the guilt OF
innocence of the defendant, and there
the supreme court that the evidence
was insufficient to justify verdict OF
guilty.'
Judge Harrison also says: ~ am
not advised Of any new Developments
in the case which should cause the
county attorney to- change his mind.
He has not called the attention of the
was used in the other trials.' Under
these conditions the judge cannot see
that there Ewould be sufficient reason
for, dismissal in view Of the. above
The cases have been set for trial
OCC. lU.
Aside from the attorneys, officers Of
the court and newspaper men, there
were not a half dozen persons in the
! courtroom when the decision was read.
DR.. Ames sat at the attorneys table,
elbow ON table and hand in chin, ap-
parently little interested in the pro-
ceedings. G. S. Cary Of st. Paul, rep
resentlng DIR. Ames, secured PERMISSION
to make any necessary motion before
the date set for the trial. which, he
said, he would be glad to have come
at the earliest date possible.
Text of Decision.
The decision in full is as follows.
"Section 1916 Of the general stat
utes of 1894 provides that the court
may, either OF it's own motion or on
the application Of the prosecuting off
GER, and in furtherance Of Justice, or
der an action after Indictment to be
dismissed; but in that case the reasons
of the dismissal shall be set forth IL
the order and entered upon the min
utes.' y
''The Indictment in this case con
tains charge that the DEFENDANT did
Minneapolis, and on the 18th day O.
December, 1901, receive of one Bessi
Lee 500 upon the understanding am
agreement that his official action a
mayor should be Influenced thereby an
that she should be protected.
ENIt is true, as the county attorne.
} said in his motion to dismiss, that on
case involving the same charge wa
tried before this court and
by the Jury, and the defendant wa
sentenced to the state S prison: ~:
) 9 That case was appealed and was re
versed by the supreme court upon
9 TECHNICAL point which in no manner al
: fected the guilt or innocence Of the de
4 fendant,an there was no determinatlo
y or intimation by the supreme: cou1
: that the evidence was. insufficient t
d Justify a verdict of guilty. The cou1
e merely held that the proving of tn
payment of money by the different pei
: sons to Gardner, and the payment b
n him to, the defendant, Ames, did nc
: prove the allegations Of the indictmeI
f in that case, which as construed by tn
: supreme court, charged that all of tn
h parties paying the money to Gardne
acted Jointly or. in pursuance OF a con
n mon understanding. But the suprem
n court in that opinion say: The undi
;, puted evidence on the part of the stat
h is that Gardner was delegated by tt
# defendant as his agent with powf
J. to arrange with as many wome
h as it was possible to get money. fror
e and to agree on the part of the defen'