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

| Judgment reversed. Lewis, j.
Same Result, Other Reasons.
| A concurrent opinion by Justices
Lovely and Brown says:
| We concur in the result reached in this
case, but not for the reasons given ir
the opinion of the court
| It Is the constitutional right of every
! person accused Of crime to be furnished
reasonably certain information Of the
charge upon which he is to be tried to en-
able him to prepare for his defense or tc
avail himself Of the plea of former, jeo-
Pardy. and we are very clear that this in
dictment did not accord to the accused
this guaranty Of the organic law.
The rule Of criminal pleading that the
charge must be laid positively and not in
1erentlally by way of recital merely or ar
sumentatively is we'll settled in this state.
State VS.. Howard, &c Mimi, 800; State
vs.. Clements, 80 Mimi, 44S
mis- constitutional right OF the accused
1s not abrogated by but has been recog-
n1zed by statute. State VS.. Cody, 65
Mimi, 212, and is Of little avail if the
exigenctes Of any particular case stand in
the way of its essential recognition by the
courts.
Too Many offenses Charged.
1t seems to us quite apparent that this
Indictment charges that defendant soli-
cited a number Of brides or gratis from
several distinct women, some Of them
named and others unknown and not
named, for whom protection and immun-
ity, was to be given. 1t is not set forth
in the Indictment that these women we're
actlng In concert and the fundamental
principle OF law IS that in criminal splead-
ing nothing can be Inferred intended or
presumed that is necessary to be alleged
as an essential element of a crime If the
abandoned women We're; seeking protec-
zion hoi, = IL.
brides We're to be paid by. them jointly.
the situation presented would be very diff
ferent from that Of soliciting and receiy-
Ing money of different persons at differ
ent times. each bein gan independent act
as mere alleged. We are unable by any
1alr or reasonable construction of this
pleading to reach the conclusion that such
necessary cooperation or concert Of ac-
ton by these women is charged therein.
10 infer its existence would be in effect
10 create a new accusation for a, different
onense. IF such an Inference were per-
United it would be by an infringement Of
what we regard as the plainest rules we
have already adopted
If, as held by the court, the Indictment
charges but one offense, it is impossible
to avoid the inevitable and logical result
which follows from the proofs offered at
the trial that Gardner was the agent Of
the women and paid the money to Ames
~ ~A'SHA
dence was sufficient to sustain the jury
in so finding. ~, IT., 7.
A Fatal Multiplicity.
We cannot avoid the view that the in
dlctment charges what is plainly stated
the commission Of many distinct and
separate offenses committed at different
times between the defendant and those
persons from whom. sthe brides were re-
ce1ved as well as a number Of unknown
persons of the same character whose
names might be first made known at the
trial. and thus subject the defendant to
an 1nquisition which no necessity in
criminal procedure can justify, since, It
strikes at fundamental safeguards which
1t Is Our duty to recognize and uphold.
The indictment should either have been
set aside for uncertainty or upon the de-
PENDANTS motion at the beginning of the
tial the state should have been required
to elect upon which charge the prosecu-
ton would proceed. .' 80. - I
To our minds the vital question is not |
the suff1ciency Of evidence, but whether
one of the plainest principles of the funda- |
mental law upon which the rights Of all |
citizens depend has been violated. 8, ~
@Es'.t.. T. - $50: Brown, j.
Lovely, J..