Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1879-04-19
ANOTHER Ac0UlTTAL ron Llv-
lneST0m.
The Prosecution Gees 70 10 Extent
Of FITS Evidence On Indictment
No. and Then Throws.
Up tho Sponge.

Under Instructions from the Court tho
Jury Brings il a Verdict Of Not
Guilty Without Leaving
their Seats.
Indictment No. 8 against DR.. Livingston.
ex-Indian agent at Grow Greek, was taken
up yesterday morning Unexpectedly to our
reporter and he was not upon the ground
In time to take the opening testimony tor
the prosecution. The indictment in this
case charged that Dr.. Livingston. In the
year 1873, collected from the government
$225 on a voucher running to John Flury,
the agency herder. and that of this sum
FURY received only $40. The prosecu.
ton therefore claimed that the doctor had
had embezzled the difference. This case
was outlawed and the defense had previous
~ put In . demur to the indictment based
upon that ground, which the court
did not entertain, its ruling being that the
time to apply for relief. under the statute Of
Limitation, was when the case came on for
trial. The defense concluded that it was
best to 60 through with the trial and did not
avail itself Of its privilege when the case
was moved by the prosecution.
The government began proceedings by the
introduction of the voucher and other pa
pers connected Herewith which were iden-
titled by Roberts, Dougherty and Gilbert as
having been made out by E. E. Hudson and
fled in the general Office at Washington. 1t
represented a payment made by Livingston
himself.
John FURY was the leading witness for
the prosecution. He was the party employ
ed as herder at the agency in 1878. He was
engaged at a salary Of $50 per month. FURY
stated in substance that he received $l10 in
money from DR.. Livingston, that he received
sundry articles from the store and that Llv.
ingston furnished q horse for him to ride.
he said he could not write and did not sign
any vouchers, but admitted on cross e1ami-
nation that they were signed for him by his
wife. The testimony Of FURY was contra
dictory in all its important details and va.
really Of little value to the jury.
Ballou lie Claire was another witness from
whom important facts were.expected to b.
drawn, but he was as good witness as the
defense wanted, provided they might have
an opportunity to show some important cir
cumstances connected with the whereabouts
of the witness at the time of his alleged
participation in the aforesaid herding oper-
atoms.
At the close of the testimony on the part
of the prosecution, the district attorney sub
mitted that the case on trial was outlawed
under the law Of limitation, and suggested
that further proceedings be dispensed with.
The defense objected s%trenuously to this
summary cutting off of the proceedings,
1t had much important testimony in rebuff
tai, by which it could show that the defend
ant was entirely g%uiltless of the charge en-.
tered against him. As the prosecution had
been given an opportunity to introduce wit,
nesses to prove a crime, the defense did not
think it just that the case should there rest
without giving the accused IN opportunity t.
show that he was wrongfully accused. DR.
Livingston's counsel were prepared to show
this, and asked for the continuance of tn,
case whilst their testimony was laid before
the jury.
The court thought it was useless to tax.
up time with a case which had no founda
ton to it and ruled that it must there b.
brought to q close. He instructed a jury
that it was their duty to bring in a verdict
Of acquittal, and the jury, without retiring
found for the defendant.
1t is greatly to be regretted that this &C.
ton was 80 suddenly cut of. DR.. Living.
ston had an abundance of evidence ready
on his side of the question and would have
clearly proven himself guiltless of any
blame in this matter. It was no more thar
his due that he should have this opportunity
as he has been branded as a thief, from the
Atlantic to the Pacific, BY the agents o.
the government, and his only opportunity
to place himself Alright before the people
is through the medium of the court before
which he has BEEN arraigned. While the
court followed strictly the law in its ruling,
it is to be regretted that laws are not %
framed that men may have opportunity for
complete justification.
Thus endeth the second case. Another il
on trial this afternoon, against the same
defendant.
TRIAL NUMBER THREE.
The third case against DR.. Livingston
came up this morning. The indictment
charges him, In substance, with making
ont q false and fraudulent pay roll. in
which he purported to pay to certain labor.
ers at Grow Greek agency. on June 3oth,
1877, the aggregate sum of $295,70. and
fha the 1ahnr vao novoe rorEnvuod snd