Daily globe., 1878-10-11
THE BARRETT ROBBERY
4 GOOD LOOKING YOUNG MAN ON
TRIAL FOR II CRIME.

a GOOD LOOKING YOUNG NAN ON
TRIAL FOR n CRIME.
His Wife's Appearance in the Court room
Her Testimony in Her Husbands Be
half--Both Sides of the Story Sworn to-
Argument to be Heard To-day.
In the district court, yesterday morning,
Judge Wilkin presiding. the case of William
Hughes, charged with the larceny of pair Of
opera glasses, was resumed. The testimony
being given and the jury addressed, the scase
was submitted to the jury at IL $40 A. NJ.
THE BARRETT ROBBERY.
The court then took up tho case of David B.
Barrett charged in two indictments for rob-
berry and larceny. It is set forth that Barrett
did feloniously, etc., rob and steal from Samuel
Schultz the sum Of $27 on the 10th day of
August. 1875 Mr.. @. d. O,Brien ap-
peared for the defendant and County
Attorney Rogers represented the prose-
cution. Counsel for defense had on a previous
day of the term moved to quash one Of the in
dictments as it was claimed that they were
identical in the alleged commission of the
crime set forth. The motion was taken under
advisement by the court. The cause came up
yesterday for the county to elect which charge
defendant was to be arraigned upon. The case
went to trial on the charge of robbery.
THE PARTIES TO THE TRIAL.
David B. Barrett, the alleged thief, is a
handsome young man of about "a years of age,
and wears about him none of the impress of a
hardened character. He appeared in court
neatly and comfortably arranged in black
suit of clothes.
BARRETT's WIFE.
He was supported by his wife, young
woman of prepossessing appearance. She was
neatly dressed in black, and presented stylish
appearance. Throughout the trial she kept q
thin black veil drawn over her face. She
evinced great interest in the progress of the
trial, and showed throughout wifely sympathy
for her young and ood-looking husband.
A jury was obtained without difficulty. none
of the panel heing challenged either by the de-
Tense or prosecution.
WHAT BARRETT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE DONE.
statement Of the case was made to the jury
by County Attorney Rogers. He stated that
Schultz and Barrett, the defendant, had come ur
from Hastings on the day the robbery occurred
that they had made mutual interchange OF
confidence about their financial condition. Ar
irving at St. Paul, they went together to sa.
loon on lower jackson street and drank to.
gether. Half an hour before the robbery hap
pened, the two were together in the bar-room OF
the Warren, on the corner of Fourth and Jack
son streets. There Schultz paid for the drinks
In company, the two went to the vicinity o1
Lindekes mills, in the Fifth ward. There dcfen
dant assaulted Schultz, knocked him down, an0
forcibly took from him the treasury notes anG
national bank currency in the sum of $27
Next day he was arrested by Capt. Clark at his
in "a IN InOl ho %lox, st.
great excitement and trepidation. Only $l wal
found on his person. Counsel laid no claim
that this $l was any part of the sum taker
from Schultz; the prosecution had no means o1
identifying it. But all other circumstance
as stated could be proved. Counsel then ex
planned the difference between the crime o1
larceny and robbery.
HUGHES FOUND GUILTY.
As Mr.. Rogers finished. the jury in tht
Hughes case came in and returned verdict Of
guilty. assessing the worth of the opera glasse.
to be $12.
THE TESTIMONY.
The Barrett case was resumed. The first
witness was Schultz. lie gave an account ot
his meeting with Barrett And related how
the assault occurred and the robbery com
mitted.
This witness was subjected to cross-exami
nation. The theory of the defense was some
what developed. and in two-fold sense. First
that Schultz wasn't robbed by Barret
but had lost his money elsewhere, or hadn'
lost it at all. Secondly, that he had made a,
effort to extor6 $50 out of Barrett, and for tha
would disappear and not prosecute Barrett
| The witness admitted this, and confessed t,
having signed paper to that effect drawn u,
by friend named John Frett. To this over
ture Barrett paid no attention. but referred
MIN to his lawyer and the attorney positivel,
declined to entertain any such proposition
Witness had first proposed the matter to Mrs
Barrett. and said she had called on him abou
| IT., and it was out of sympathy for her that b.
made her the proposition.
The barkeeper of Cooks saloon. OF
jackson street, was next called. His testi
mony was Introduce to show the companion
ship of Barrett and Schultz in the saloon O,
the night of the robbery, one half hour befor
it happened.
Capt. Clark testified that he had made tn
arrest, and related the circumstances attending
it.
The State rested it's sase
BARRETT's STORY.
On the part of the defense the following wit
nesses were introduced to establish former gooe
character:
Messrs. Page, George Tupper, of Minneapolis
DR.. Nichols, and others, ali knew defendant
and had entertained an excellent opinion ot
him for honessy, ETC.
Daniel B. Barrett, the defendant was placed
upon the stand. He narrated the way o1
meeting with Schultz on the train from Hast
ing. Arriving at st. Paul. witness helped
Schultz to carry his valise up town, Witness
and Schultz roamed about town to several
saloons, and drank together. The valise was
lef' in Cooks saloon. Witness declared he did
not assault or rob Schultz, but left Schultz on
the corner of jackson and Fifth street, because
he (Schultz) wanted to go to a bawdy house.
The cross-examination didn't alter the story.
MRS. BARRETT ON THE STAND.
Mrs. Barrett, wife of defendant, was called
to the stand. She was subjected to
long examination The point
was fully developed regarding the compromise
business OF $50. Witness had received word
from Schultz, went to see what he wanted.
witness consulted her attorney and had been
told by him to get any agreement she could.
Witness had agreed to Schultz's proposition.
not that she ever intended to accept, but want.
ed Schultz's words in black and white. and she
had got them.
The testimony was given promptly and with
great composure. On cross-examination. Mr..
Rogers put her through a severe test, through
which she passed with great self-possession. and
without effecting material change in the di-
rect testimony. Now and then she hesi-
tated, and declared she didn't understand the
question.
ACTING LIKE AGNES JENKs.
She and Mr.. Rogers had one bit of tilt.
He asked a que stion, and she attempted to
circumvent him by saying:
II don't understand
My question is plain.''
The question was put again and she started
IN for answer, and was stopped with
Answer my question: Mrs. Barrett
- am trying to do so to the best of nv
ability
Your ability is limited
NJ That may be SO; my misfortune, only
The defense rested its case.
IN REaUTTAL.
The prosecution called John Frett to explain
the circumstances Of the 500 compromise. He