Cited by

State v. Gardner, 88 Minn. 130 , .

The law of 1895 was before the court in State v. Gardner, 88 Minn. 130 , , where it was said that the statute gave a right not before possessed by the parties to actions in the district court, and it ivas held that the right of a defendant in a criminal case to incapacitate a judge to try his case by an affidavit of prejudice was limited to the presiding judge against whom t

The extent of the holding is that the statute in question does not reach such a case, nor the case of any relationship of that character between the judge and any of the attorneys of the parties.” This decision was followed in the case of State v. District Court of Hennepin County, 50 Minn. 14, 18 , , and cited with approval in State v. Gardner, 88 Minn. 130 , .

“The constitutional guaranty not only protects a person from being compelled to give direct evidence tending to establish his guilt, but also from giving any circumstance or link in the chain of evidence which may tend to convict him of a crime.” State v. Gardner, 88 Minn. 130 , .

Again, the clear and broad terms of the proviso, considered in connection with its history, as stated in State v. Gardner, 88 Minn. 130 , , indicate an undoubted intention on the part of the legislature that the provisions of the statute should not be inflicted upon judicial districts having less than three judges.

*388 In State v. Gardner, 88 Minn. 130 , , we held that a defendant in a criminal case should not be compelled to go before the grand jury in violation of the guaranty referred to, and give evidence either directly or indirectly against himself, or tending to affect his rights upon an indictment founded thereon.

State v. Palmer, 79 Minn. 428 , ; People v. McKane, 143 N. Y. 455 , 38 N. E. 950 ; State v. Gardner, 88 Minn. 130 , ; State v. Winner, 17 Kan.