Cited by

See, e. g., State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , 172 N.W.

See, State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394

E. g., State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394, 397 , ; United States v. Minieri (2 Cir.) 303 F. (2d) 550; Pearson v. United States (6 Cir.) 192 F. (2d) 681.

2 It has been recognized that such possession is evidence of guilt in State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , , and State v. Johnson, 33 Minn. 34 , .

9 State v. DePauw, 246 Minn. 91 , 74 N. W. (2d) 297 ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Bock, 229 Minn. 449 , 39 N. W. (2d) 887 ; City of St.

See, State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26, 29 , ; State v. Shtemme, 133 Minn. 184, 186 , ; State v. Haney, 219 Minn. 518 , 18 N. W. (2d) 315 ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394, 398 , ; State v. Ettenberg, 145 Minn. 39, 43 , ; State v. Yurkiewicz, 212 Minn. 208, 210, 211 , 3 N. W. (2d) 775, 776 ; State v. Hacker, 153 Minn. 538 , ; State v. Friedman, 146 Minn. 373 , , rehearing denied, 146 Minn. 380 , .

527 ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , 172 N.W.

It is therefore competent to show that the defendant had been engaged in practicing like or similar cheats, as tending to prove a criminal intent.” In State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394, 398 , , we said: “The contention of defendant is that the evidence tended to prove the commission of other independent crimes, was an indirect .attack upon his character, and therefore inadmissible under the rule stated and applied in the Fitchette case [ 88 Minn. 145 , ], supra.

As another exception, evidence of a separate and independent crime is admissible if such crime is definitely the outgrowth of a plan or a system of similar crimes and such “evidence is admissible, not to establish the other crime, but as confirmatory of the evidence tending to show the commission by defendant of the one on trial.” State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394, 398 , ; State v. Ettenberg, 145 Minn. 39 , ; State v. Yurkiewicz, 212 Minn. 208 , 3 N. W. (2d) 775 ; 20 Am.

State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Whipple, 143 Minn. 403 , ; State v. Friedman, 146 Minn. 373 , , ; State v. Ettenberg, 145 Minn. 39 , ; State v. Friend, 151 Minn. 138 , ; State v. Hacker, 153 Minn. 538 , ; State v. Clark, 155 Minn. 117 , 192

No attempt had been made by the state in its case to show any plan or scheme as was done in State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Oelschlegel, 173 Minn. 598 , .

State v. Johnson, supra, p. 513; State v. Monroe, 112 Minn. 391 , ; State v. Clark, 155 Minn. 117 , ; State v. Lipman, 163 Minn. 131 , ; 16 C. J. 591.

State v. Peterson, 98 Minn. 210 , ; State v. Gesell, 137 Minn. 43 , ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Ettenberg, 145 Minn. 39 , ; State v. Clark, 155 Minn. 117 , ; State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9 , ; State v. McGraw, 163 Minn. 154 , ; State v. Lipman, 163 Minn. 431 , 204 N. W, 163; State v. Huber, 171 Minn. 429 , .

State v. Wilson, 72 Minn. 522 , ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Ettenberg, 145 Minn. 39 , ; State v. Friedman, 146 Minn. 373 , ; Albrecht v. Rathai, 150 Minn. 256 , ; State v. Hacker, 153 Minn. 538 , ; State v. Rosenberg, 155 Minn. 37 , ; State v. Horr, 163 Minn. 141, 148

State v. Etten-berg, 145 Minn. 39 , State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

None of it violated the rule admitting evidence of other similar or related offenses announced in such cases as State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , .

All the claims in question were for labor and material furnished within a period of about six weeks for the reconstruction of defendant’s building; and we think the evidence was clearly admissible for the purpose for which it was offered under the doctrine of such cases as State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Etten-berg, 145 Minn. 39 , ; State v. Hacker, 153 Minn. 538 , ; State v. Rosenberg, 155 Minn. 37 , ; State v. Clark, 155 Minn. 117 , ; State v. Horr,

State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Summerland, 155 Minn. 395 , ; State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 315 (341); 16 C. J. 406.

It would be extending the application of the rule of State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , 96 N„ W. 330, and State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , , too far to hold that these facts bring the case within the scope of the rule there stated.

State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , 172 N.W.

State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , .

State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Clark, 155 Minn. 117 , .

State v. Miller, 45 Minn. 521 , ; State v. Hoshaw, 89 Minn. 307 , ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Jatal, supra.

The events were so connected in time as to tend to show a general system or plan to commit crimes similar to the one charged and to render the evidence admissible as corroborative evidence under the rule of State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , .

This evidence so connected the other transactions with the one here involved as to tend to prove a system or plan of operation, and the evidence was admissible as corroborative proof under the doctrine of State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , .