Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-04-03

dryly amid general laughter. which Ineer-
soil bore with good humor.
The letters represent that Reerdel was a
man OF lrreproachable character.
Merrlck inquired if these st,Ea7, 4,.sr
were true.
I'm the light of present eye0fs?, sar-
castically queried witness.
I'm the light OF tie events Of April.
1872" returned Merrick
"Oh, 1 suppose so,' answered the Wit.
ness.
Witness described at some leazsh the
circumstances attending the distribution of
the routes when he assumed an active in
terest in the business. The sub-contracts
were given to Miner hy Peck and Dorsey
and all the routes witness received from
Miner, given By the Contractors 10 witness.
or by Haerdel, TO whom assignments of
postal drafts were also made. Witness en-
pIoyed Reerdsl to look after his routes.
After that witness did all he could lawfully
and properly to have such services increas-
ed as deserved and if he had neglected
anything to that end, he did not
know it. Witness understood the basis for
expedition according to the department
regulations, was affidavits. The witness
did not remember that lot of blank aft
davis had been divided up among con-
tractors. He presumed that there was
some sort OF an arrangement of which a
nominal contractor on transferred route
should furnish an affidavit, when neces-
sary. up to the 9th of June. 1879. witness
mad very little to do with the business.
Inc Whole thing was in ReerdeIs hands.
Az that tlme,' said witness earnestly. II
nao no more to do with it than you had,
MI Merrlck, nor did ! care three strains
Tor them, the contractors,
lie was asked why John Dorsey had Civ
on an alnoaVlt In connection with one of
lis, "l'ness, routes, on April %, 1879.
lie SAID he believed that the regulations
the record, and in this case John Dorsey.
was contractor.
Two athdavits were shown to witness
but he did not recollect whether he fiIIeG
them out or not. To very many Questions
witness replies indicated a faulty mem
DRY, while he did not dispute that the facts
might be as the questions suggested.
Orders for increase of expedition unon
witness routes we're taken up, and he was
asked if he recolIected them.
In majority of cases he recollected
orders, but declared that he was not in the
city IN the time. He had never drawn a
cent from government on account of these
routes during two quarters. He had
discounted drafts through the banks which
secured the money.
Merrlck inquired if witness did not
recollect that within few months of his
assuming the charge of the business the
receipts from routes had been increased bv
SOL, 1865 per annum.
Counsel objected to the question.
The court said the fact could neither be
proved nor disproved by the witness
recollection.
Merrick thought that it was hardly prob
able man could have no recollection of
such large increase in his income.
Witness said that he remembered in
creased receipts generally, but not specific
sums. 1t was mistake to suppose the
profits were large. The Mineral park and.
P1oche route showed an apparent profit of
$4,000 per annum, but it had been sold,
for small sum, because it was in actual
loss from heavy fines and deductions of
$4,000 that remained yet unpaid.
Merrlck wished to know if witness meant
that contractors paid fines for which sub
contractors were responsible.
He answered that they did in many
cases. Witness only drew pay for service
during two quarters and Bosler drew paw
for the quarters ending Dec. 81, 1879, and
thereafter. Among the routes which had
not said, witness cited the Toquerville-
Adalrville route, in which Reerdel had an
interest, and was paid $4,000 per annum.
In his management of this route, said wit
ness, Reerdel stole $4,000 from Bosler and
himself
Witness was interrupted by the prosecu-
WhIln &b0l
Reerdel had committed this robbery, and
the court ruled the matter was not peril
nent.
Bliss undertook to say that the state
ment was untrue.
Ingersoll Offered to prove that it was
trTe.
Witness said that he ought to know some
thing about itwhen he had paid the money
himself; but the court refused to permit
further answer
Witness said Bosler went into the bust
ness to advance money. When witness
left this city in June, 1873, he had no in
tentlon of returning. He supposed that
he had informed Bosler as to the nature of
the business, but had no recollection of
having q statement made for that purpose.
or having directed Reerdel to show
the books to Bosler. Bosler was
to advance money and eceive
interest for it. He was also to receive a
third interest as bonus. Witness would
not have referred Bosler to such a man as
Reerdel, because Bosler was in the habit
of thoroughly examining into a matter
when he advanced money. He had settled
with Bosler just before the beginning of
the trial, and the account book had been
given witness. Adjourned.