The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1917-02-09
A. G. MARSHALL WAS BEFORE
JUDGE COMSTOCK
Stated That He Did. Not Know LaWW Was
Being v iolated and That His Trans
actions We're Always Intended to Be
Within the Statutes; Remarks BY His
Honor; County Attorney ]. W. Schmilt
Made a Statement Regarding the
Prosecution of Defendant
From Fridays Daily.

From Fridays Daily.
G. Marshall, recently convicted by
a jury in the district court of the
charge preferred by w. j. Morris Of
Mapleton, made a plea In his own be-
half yesterday afternoon. Mr.. Mar
shall stated that at nc time had he
transacted business IN any way that
he had thought to be illegal. and in
spite of the decision Of the jury he
could not believe himself guilty,
neither did he see how he could in
any way have conducted the bust
ness deal differently, and would no
doubt have lone the same way again
if the occasion had come, as he did
not know he was doing anything not
within the law. He stated that the
case had cost him dearly so far, and
he had lost practically everything
both in the business transaction and
in defending the case. He stated that
he had been led to believe that the
case would be dismissed and dis
posed Of satisfactorily if he could
raise $1,000.
Talk of Settlement.
Judge Comstock asked if Marshall
meant that since the trial and re-
turning of the verdict he had been
told he could avoid the law by rails
ing $1,000, and settling with>the COM
plainant. Mr.. Marshall replied that
such was the case, that his attorney
had informed him that he might be
able to avoid the course Of the law if
he could raise $1,000, and that the
attorneys for the prosecution had al
so intimated so. He said that some
people thought he had some money
laid by and if he would "come across"
the case would not be prosecuted. He
asked the Judge to impose a fine
within his reach, and if possible he
would pay it, instead of imposing a
prison sentence
Some Remarks Explained.
Attorney John F. Bernhagen of
Minneapolis, attorney for the defend
ant, arose and explained some of the
remarks made by his client, and en-
deavored to assure the court that at
no time had he intended to lead his
client to believe that the urse Of
justice might be avoided by re-im-
bursting the complainant. He ex-
planned that he thought Mr.. Mar
shall was innocent of any intent of
wrong doing, and asked for a rea-
sonable fine, and a stay of sentence
to enable his client to procure the
money for the fine.
Mr.. Bernhagen further stated that
the county attorney never said that
the prosecution could or would be
dismissed, but that if the defendant
r.,o,JI ,1ooJ n,ri1fr on1 avoid tho
expense of a trial and make some
restitution to the man Norris and in
that way show a disposition to do
right, the ends Of justice might be
served by limiting the punishment
to a fine, and that a fine might be
recommended, but that he would
q have to take his chances with the
court, and that there could be no
assurance That the court would pay
any attention to the recommends
ton, if made.
Statement by Mr.. Schmitt.
County Attorney ]. w. Schmitt,
prosecuting attorney, in his state
ment to the court, explained that at
no time had he led the defendant or
his attorney to believ G, that the
course of Justice might be avoided
by a settlement with Mr.. Morris, but
that he told them that Mr.. Morris
ought to be reimbursed for his loss,
and if such reimbursement was
made the court might take it into
consideration if ne should plead guilty
and save the expense of a trial, thus
showing a disposition to be right, and
impose a fine instead of a prison SEN
.-1-=IL4 Ir1~Io~f liz hr;nAy
reviewed the case, and said that it
appeared to him that the defendant
had a disposition to "sting' people,
as he had stated that he might do the
the same thing again.
That .ne defendant came to the
county attorney and sent others to
him to use their influence, and that
they were all told that the criminal
prosecution could in no way be set
fled regardless of what was done by
him with the Morris claim, but that
he might plead guilty and avoid the
expense of a trial. Nothing different
was done than in other cases where
negotiations are entered into for
the defendant to plead guilty in
any case, and in all those cases some
I ~leniency has generally been shown
and the. degree, and thereby the
punishment, has been reduced.
In closing the county attorney
said that in this cas- an alternative
sentence might be pronounced, SEN
fencing the defendant to pay a fine
and in default of the payment to
Imprisonment, but that under the
circumstances he did not make it as
a Recommendation. +
Remarks BY The Court.
Judge Comstock in delivering SEN
tence upon Marshall stated that
many of the matters pro and con,
brought up by both sides should not
influence the court, which was con-
cerned only with the facts of this
particular case. He regretted that any
interviews had taken place.
The court must judge on the rec
ord of the case,Z the verdict of the
iury and the record on which that
iury rested, the fact being that A. G..
Marshall had been found guilty of
having on March II, 1914, obtained
the signature of w. J. Morris to a
written instrument, a promissory
note for $3.50, to four notes of the
same kind, by false p~retense, and it