Daily globe., 1883-07-19
HOLDRLDGE,s ExAMIN1TION.
Ihe Prosecution Testify and the Defense
Beglns-Continuance to August 1O-Co1.
Hicks Fires a Hot Ball.

The Prosecution Testify and the Defense
Begins-Continuance to August 1O-Col.
Hicks Fires Hot Ball.
The case of Earl A. Haldridge, ar
rested July 8, on an alleged charge of
fraud in a certain grain transaction with
Messrs. McIlrath & Gilbert, commission
merchants of this city, came up before
Judge Burr yesterday afternoon on pre-
llm1nary examination. The particulars of
this case have been published in the
GLOBE, and its readers are familiar with
them. The prosecution was conducted by
County Attorney Egan, and the defense
by Henry J. Horn, Esq, and Hon. II. G..
Hicks, of Minneapolis.
Mr.. Charles McIlrath was the first wit
ness, and his testimony was to the effect
that the firm of McIlrath & Gilbert bought
IN January last warehouse receipt from
Mr.. Hlodr.dge for 5000 bushels of oats;
that they entered into joint partnership
with Holdridge q Britton "a written agree
ment to the effect being offered in evil
dence) in the purchase of these oats, in
which each was to share alike in expenses
and profits. The latter part of May they
(McIlrath & GiIbert) learned of the falling
in of the Murdock warehouse. and feeling
insecure in their transaction, proposed to
Holdridge to sell him their interest in the
oats, and on the 18th of June
the transfer was effected, Holdridge
giving two notes for S2,1OO. dated
back to June ,, and due in thirty and sixty
days, they to retain possession of the
warehouse receipt until the notes were
paid. Subsequent to the first transaction,
thpu hoa 71lo Abo Al
National bank as collateral.
Mr.. Gilbert's evidence, in purport, did
not differ from that of Mr.. McIlrath. Mr.
Britton testified that there was not 500
bushels of oats in the warehouse. The
prosecution here rested their case, and the
defense moved to dismiss the action on the
grounds that the evidence adduced was in
sufficient. Lengthy and able arguments
were made by both attorneys for the de-
tense, and by the attorney for the prose-
cutlon, when the court denied the motion
At O'Clock Mr.. Holdridge was sworn
and had taken the witness stand. Mr..
Egan objected and claimed the right to
Introduce rebutting testimony by bringing
witnesses from Murdock. The defense
desired to dispose of the case at once, and
would ask the witness only two or three
questions, the first being, "How many
bushels of oats were there in the ware
house at the time OF the transaction?" to
which the witness replied, "About 1000
bushels The witness identified the books
of the firm and they were offered in evi-
dence.
Pending the further examination of the
witness, Mr.. Eag IN stated that cross exam
ination of the witness would require CON
siderable time, and the services of an ex-
pert to examine the books. The court
wished to continue the case until the 21st,
when Mr.. Hicks said he was obliged to go
to Denver, and would be absent nearly
three weeks. By mutual agreement fur
ther examination was postponed until
August 10 at 10 a. m.
During the closing of the discussion Mr..
Hicks used pretty strong language in
characterization of the manner in which
the prosecution had been conducted by
parties outside of the attorney. He said
he had been approached two weeks ago by
an offer to compromise, and threat to ar
rest Hoibridge if the matter was not set
f1ad