Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1880-03-15
LIVINGSTON on MAJ.

ct shs Eviaeacs ana Pre-
Court.
saturday AFTERNOON.
A certified copy ofsa.d report marked 3D.
was mex. put in evidence Over the objection
of the defense.
A certified copy of the estimate ofsupplies
for Grow Creek agency for the year 1873 a.
made BY Henry F. Livingston, marked BY
court &C" vas next offered in evidence to
show that the defendant a.ked in said eati.
mate for $l204 90 worth Of tobacco, or 1900
pounds.
Objected to BY defense as incompetent and
that it Wa immaterial to prove any Of the
counts in the indictment, and that from the
date it was made over a year before the
weekly report in evidence. that at best it
would only 60 to prove the correctness or
incorrectness of L~ivingston's judgment.
The U. attorney said they proposed to
show that the estimate was made very near
the time of making the eaid weekly report,
and he thought il competent evidence as
tending to show 10 intention Of fraud.
The court said that all accounts concern.
ing the rasions aud tobacco mentioned in
the indictment were most clearly competent
evidence, and overruled the objection.
Witness on the stand, Henry Arthur
sta,ed that he knew of his own knowledge
how the paper marked IA" was disposed of
in the interior department. that it was re.
corded in the accounts division of the de
partment Of the interior, where he formerly
had charge Of the supply report book.
The court here ~admonished the jury,
placed them in charge Of the sworn officers
and then adjourned until $50 o'clock Mon
day morning. 80
MONDAY FORENOON.
At $50 court was opened and the jury
brought in by the officers.
HENRY ARTHUR
again called to the stand. He stated that
paper marked GA" being the said weekly
supply report, was recorded in the accounts
division of the Indian Office of the interior
departdse:M at Washington.
Prosecuting attorney here asked by a mo.
ton that the defense furnish a list of their
witnesses in order that all such Witnesses
except the one on examination may be ex-
cluded from the court room, 20 that they
might not hear each others testimony.
The defense objected to the motion of the
prosecution, arguing that such q motion was
not a matter of right but a matter Of discre.
ton with the judge, and that the prosecuting
attorney must chow the ground on which he
asked for such discretion to be exercised,
That the court must then use his discretion
and not grant the motion simply because i,
was made. That the melton ought to apply
to all of the witnesses in the Gaze aud no
those upon one side or the other. That il
any case the list should be furnished to a mar
shal who should be required to keep sale
persons out of court but that the attorney
upon either eide could not ask for eaid lis
for themselves. But that if said motion va
granted they would AK that M. Russell b.
excluded from the order a. his knowledg,
was very essential to the attorneys in con
Quoting their defense, and that his exclusion
would work great hardships (ststing his rea
sony
The U. S. attorney then filed a write,
motion, and defense flea a written obiectio,
thereto.
The court then said that he understood i
to be the settled practice in all the court
throughout the United States to grant aucl
a motion upon application of either party
That it had also been the practice in thu
court in former trials and that he could no
depart from the established practice in ,hi
case.
He then granted the motion Excluding
from it witnesses az to character and exper
testimony and ordered that q li.t of defend
ants witnesses be drawn and delivered to Il
U. 8. marshal.
He said, however, that If the defense
wished to except any witness they nigh,
WoAC u WOtAOU 70 tu6t eueCk 8uu ne WOOIO
consider it.
The defense then moved in writing that
such order be extended 90 xs to include the
witnesses for the prosecution, which motion
was also granted.
The defense then a.ked (stating their rea.
sons) that Mr.. Russell be excluded from the
order, which was granted.
The prosecution then asked the same fol-
Capt. Dougherty, one Of his witnesses, which
was also granted.
Lists were then marked out and handed to
the marshal. The trial then proceeded. Mr.,
Arthur said he got said paper marked "a"
from the files Of the accounts division ; thai
this paper was first presented to the chic
clerk's division and went from there directly
to the accounts division; that this paper va,
examined in the accounts division of the
Indian Office; that it was there examined
for the purpose Of ascertaining it, correct
noea . sI.oe tho i.an> had hnon c,o,o.1-.l