Sharpe v. Larson

Decision Date09 February 1897
Docket NumberNos. 10.348 - (271).,s. 10.348 - (271).
Citation67 Minn. 428
PartiesPETER SHARPE v. B. B. LARSON.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

"In the Halstad Reporter of Feb. 6 appears an article signed by N. T. Moen, which I think no more than right to answer. Moen says that after a jury of 12 men had taken their solemn oaths to do justice they talk about more cheek than a government mule. How can you be so stubborn, Mr. Moen? Was you not at the trial? Don't you remember the juryman, Martin Brown, who under solemn oath said that he had been on the first jury; knew all about the case and had formed an opinion which could not be removed by evidence; that he could not and would not decide the case impartially, and when I, as defendant, who according to law was entitled to a fair and impartial hearing, kindly asked to have said juryman dismissed you frankly objected. And that man Friday from Hendrum, whom you had been hunting for one solid week, while court was open all the time, sustained your objection. Why did you not allow me a fair trial, Mr. Moen? You say: Why do we establish courts of justice? Why was it that four of the jurymen, who had been on the first jury, and who was so closely connected with the last case, should be on the other case? Why should you have to use the same jury when you had the whole township and village to select a jury from? Mr. Houske was on both juries, and he explained it like this: That in the first case he dismissed Berg because he had not had much experience as a juryman and would not go against the majority, and in the second case he thought that when Berg was dismissed some one had to be guilty. The man went so far as to say that if he had not been on the first jury he should have found me not guilty. He must have gained experience very quickly. He did not look much at the majority this time. Brown and he hung the jury for twelve hours and then did not give up. Don't you think, Mr. Moen, that an explanation from Mr. Houske would have sounded more reasonable if he had said just about like this: `I have promised Moen, Furuseth & Co. that if I get on the jury I will agree to find Mr. Larson guilty regardless of the evidence.' * * * I will tell you that if you should ever get any experience in law, you will often find that a jury does not decide a case strictly according to law. Now, after this jury agreed two to ten in my favor, you sent Mr. Berg, who had favored you in every point, over to me to ask if I was willing to leave it to him. I said I would not leave it to him, but was willing to leave it to J. W. Johnson, a man who is known all over the country to be one of the most honest and straight men. But no; rather than leave it with a justice that cannot be bribed in open court, you would drop it without trying it at all. Mr. Moen refers us to a case of over one year ago where he was the complaining witness. He also refers us to Judge Furuseth's docket, and speaks of Mrs. Ford, the only disinterested witness in the case. But why did you summon Nels Helgeland and John Sulerud? or what side did they favor as long as you cannot count them with the disinterested. I have always told Mr. Moen that he knew very little law, and much less common sense. I have often said that if I say anything I can give a reason for same or take it back, and I hope right here that I can give a reason for what I have said to Moen. I remember well that I was arrested by Mr. Moen, as he said and brought before Judge Furuseth. Moen asked for an adjournment in order to get disinterested witnesses, and I suggested that we should go ahead and have a test case. If we both told the truth we would not need any witnesses, and this Moen excepted to, but he did not testify the same way. We had some witnesses who corroborated me, but that was not disinterested witnesses. The judge then told Mr. Moen that there was not enough evidence to hold me. Moen accordingly summoned the good, solid, honest and disinterested witnesses, and among them was this model Mrs. N. D. Ford. But remarkable enough, Moen and I have disagreed so many times, but in regard to the witnesses we agreed to the dot. I think Mrs. Ford was an honest, disinterested witness and told the truth every word she said. But right here is where Moen shows his small common sense, when he refers to Mrs. Ford and Furuseth's docket, which I will refer to as well as Moen. Mrs. Ford corroborated me with every word she said, except one place, and that was where Moen asked me how long time it was from the time I ordered him out till I laid hands on him to move him out. I think I said half a minute, but I also said that I ordered him out two or three times. The first time I spoke in a common voice, but when it appeared to me that he was somewhat deaf I spoke louder the last time. Mrs. Ford said that it was about two seconds from the time she heard that I ordered him out till I laid hands on him, and Moen said it was no time at all. It also appeared that Mrs. Ford had not paid any attention to our conversation until I spoke in a louder voice than common. Not one of all the rest of the witnesses materially changed my evidence at all, and will challenge Moen, Furuseth & Co. with the docket or anything else. I have often had disputes with Moen when the questions could be decided, and in order to get some satisfaction out of him I have offered to bet him, but he says I always tried to bluff him with money when I know he has none, but now in order to give Moen fair play I will invite him out on a wheelbarrow ride. Now, if Moen can show by the docket or any other way that I lied in that case or any other case, I will be the horse, and if not we'll reverse the matter. And if I cannot prove that Moen lied I will be the horse. The case went on and the judge was very careful to enter on his docket all the proceedings. The evidence of all these disinterested witnesses were just the same as mine, with the exception of Mrs. Ford, in the time between two seconds and half a minute; that is, if I did not order Moen out more than once. I understood that I had no show in Furuseth's court. I did take advantage of a technical law point, and moved to dismiss the action on the ground that I was not offered a jury. This was quite a surprise to them, but the judge was a little quicker to think, and explained it such that I was smart enough...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT