Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1880-03-17
LIVINGSTON on rRlAl.

LIVINGSTON on TRIAL.
81 the Evidence aud Pre-
cssdings Before the Usiesa states Ceurt
TUEsDAY AFTERNOON.
Alignment of objection still continued by
defense: That IL evidence could be admit (
ted to prove other excuses aud populations
with which they were not charged, they
might also bring 10 - evidence verdicts of
petit jurors declaring this defendant iano-
cent OF Other charges that have been
brought against him BY the prosecution.
Mr.. Gamble then argued that this weekly
report was no claim whatever against the
government. auy more than q letter would
be; that the prosecution's evidence thus
far did cot show any Claim presented by
defendant; and the first two counts OF thu
indictment charging q false claim and q
false paper 10 support Of a claim, o. far az
the weekly report goes to establish IL
amounted to nothing.
The paper itself, on account Of ito shane.
form. origin, ETC.. was Withdrawn % evil
dence. and the prosecuting attorney ofierp
to prove the following: That there are
some weekly rrp"r,s In evidence 10 which
defendant reported 1918 pounds Of
tobacco. when he had as
charged, 5000 pounds; aud % part of
the same -trausaction he reported 2S,546
pounds of sugar when be bad 29.434
pounds; 9.M0 pounds Of coffee when hr
actually bad 1881 pounds; $3.50 pounds
IF beaos when he bad 10 O87 pounds; l 1923
pounds Of baking powder when be had
l.646 pounds. That he made this offer fn,
the purpose, first: Of showing . "euil,y
knowledge" with which the defendant is
charged In the first and second counts of
the indictment; second, for the purpose OF
showing as regards the thi d conn, If the
indictment % intent to defraud aud to o
propriate to bis own use the articles
charged 10 the indictment. and also show
ing guilty knowledge.
Defense objected to their offer for the fol.
lowing reasons: Because it was wholly i'm.
material as to whether there was OF was not
an excess Of the articles named in the offer.
II the object Of the testimony is to charge
the defendant with the commission of a
crime similar to that alleged 10 the indict-
ment, it is incompetent. 1t does not tend TO
form any allegation of the indictment or
any issue joined.
TIL nonrt thon cold %b.x ,.,I L.l.l
BEEN devoted TO the discussion of this i'm
por;ant offer. Nun. rous cases and author
tiles had been cited and this court was con-
strained to follow the decision in the follow
ing cases. The Judge here cited thirteen or
fourteen different cases and then said it was
declared that the object Of the evidence was
to show guilty knowledge in the first two
counts and guilty intent in the third count
which is for embezzlement. In the admis-
sion of such evidence the court held that it
was competent merely for such purpose and
the c'nrt muet instruct the jury now, that
the reception Of such evidence was strictly
limited to the single purpose for which it
was stated to be competent. 1t could not be
received or admitted as general proof of the
guilt of the defendant
To this ruling the defendant excepted,
The jury, which had not been in court
during the afternoon argument was here
called in. The reporter read to them what
had transpired during their absence and
the Judge instructed them that they must be
careful in receiving the evidence which he
had admitted, and understand clearly the
purpose for which such evidence was re.
ceived. That it was to be applied to the
allegations in the indictment of which was
called equity knowledge" in the first two
counts and guilty intent" in the third.
Such evidence when given was confined to
the single purpose he had indicated ; for
it was a great principle Of the Law that a
party is not convicted Of one crime even if
there shouli be lawful proof that he was
guilty of another one. The first two counts
10 the Indictment alleged that, 10 substance,
the defendant presented q claim against the
AoWSu1 Wluk ~ " w Ial10 u nc
titious and for the purpose of obtaining such
claim he used a written statement, knowing
that it contained fictitious statements and
returns. 1t va. therefore in regard to this
alleged knowledge of defendant that evi.
dence was about to be admitted. The third
ouo charged embezzlement and it was 10
regard to the intent merely that ,hi, evi.
dence va. admitted on the third count.
Mr.. Sphinx, one Of the a%ttorneys for the
defense, being sick and unable to 70 On
with his work, the court adjourned until
$50 Wednesday morning.
WEDNESDAY FORENOON,
Court opened at 10 O'Clock with Jury
in the box and Capt. Douyherty was called
to the stand.
Witness stated that he found nearly 5000
pounds of sugar in excess Of that reported BY
defendant; also an excess Of 2,40O pounds of
coffee, 1923 pounds Of baking powder and T..
527 pounds o. beans. The sugar vas worth