The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1912-12-13


prisoners. He took his chance and
lost. The bulk of the testimony was
that Pollei called two or three times
upon Hack to stop. Those who did
not testify to this said they simply
did not hear the orders. Negative
testimony is to be taken with care
and not given the same weight as
positive testimony, the law says.
1t cannot be claimed that the Off
Ger did not give him chance
Hack was taking oil chances. If
Pollei had sought his life he would
have shot him a second time. No
| body knew that Hack was hit
until he was examined after he
fell.
Definitions are Read.
Mr.. Wilson read the destinations
of eXcusable and justifable homi-
eide, and argued that HACKS death
came under this If Hack had
committed felony and was fee
ing from the officer his killing was
Unsuitable. But Pollei says that he
tried to shoot into the air for the
purpose of frightening the prisoner
into surrendering. Pollei was rum
ming fast when he shot. There are
many things that the bullet may
have struck before it entered
HACKS body. There is no way of
telling whether it did or not There
lis strong probability that the
bullet struck something else first.
which is indicated by the shape of
the bullet as it now is. But if
lit was shot STRAIGHT 1T Hack it
might still have been an accident.
There was testimony that the
and slit sidewise, which might be
accounted for if the bullet struck
some other object and glanced and
entered HACKS body sidewise. Pol
lei intended to shoot into the air
and if Hack did not stop, to shoot
him in the leg on the bridge, which
is the usual way that officers shoot
fleeing prisoners.
Are you going to tear this de-
PENDANT from his family and lock
him up in Saltwater, leaving his
wife worse than widow and his
children to. grow up without a ia
theirs guiding hand? No, this de-
PENDANT deserves the plaudits of
the people rather than their con
demnation. If he is subject TO
shame and degradation and ruin
and his entire family ruined. it will
not bring back Hubert Hack to
life. There should be no compro-
mise or sidestepping by the jury,
but it should stand by the officer
who has stood by the homes of
this city. Because of the death
OF an outlaw, regrettable as it is,
it is no reason why ruin should
be brought upon another man and
his family and the protection of
the law stultilied
Mr. Wilson's address occupied
two hours.
IN charging the jury, the court
referred to the Importance of the
case. 1t was important to know
whether the laws had been vic:
lated and it was, for the jury to
determine this from the evidence,
in the light OF the law as present
ed to it by the court The defend
ant was presumed to be innocent
at the outset of the trial,
regardless of the indictment having
been returned. The state had UNI
dertaken to prove its charge by
positive evidence instead of circum-
stantial, by so-called eye witnesses.
The conduct of Haack with the
three ladies had an important
bearing in the case in connection
with the defendants actions There
was evidence tending to prove that
POllei arrested Hack on complaint
of two of the women and started
to take him to the police station,
that Hack remarked that "he was
up against it" and made a break
for the Main street bridge, that
and there is also evidence tending
to show that he did not call on
him to halt. Everything being
equal, negative testimony has not
the weight of positive testimony
There is evidence tending to show
that the officer fired at Hack, who
ran a short distance and fell to
the ground, suffering from a bullet
wound. The jury would hive to
determine whether the defendant
did or did not aim at Hack when
he fired. 1t is usual to prove a
motive in cases of this kind, and.
a motive is a circumstance, but
not essential to conviction.
If the officer was Informed that
Hack had committed felony, or
had good reason to believe that he
did, he had a right to make the
arrest. If the deceased committed
| the indecent assault, his arrest was
legal, but if he had not committed
it and had committed only a mis-.
demeanor the officer had no right
to make the arrest as he did or to
recapture him or to fire on him or
to kill him. If Hack had com
mitted a felony and was escaping
the killing would be justifiabe HON.
icide. If the officer killed the deceased
accidentally while trying to hold him
in custody for a felony, the killing
would be excusable homicide If
Hack had his arms about a WON
/ an, whom he did not know on the
street and against her will, it would
constitute a felony. If he had his
arms about a woman with her con
sent it would be indecorous con-
duct but not indecent assault If
there was indecent assault, the of
ficer was right in making the ar.
rest
J The jury was not to be swayed
by passion or sympathy, and it was
to take the evidence as given by
the witnesses and not from the at
torneys.
| 70 Inr n,.t Il