The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-05-01
BAUM'S BLISS.
His objection TO tho States Eyideloe
Sustained.
The Pr0st culion Forced 10 Abandon the
Case.
The Result Of The Courts Decision.

The Baum trial came to M abrupt cnd-
ing ia the district court Yesterday. Judge
Aidrdge sustained the objection raised by
dolepdaut's COUNSEL 10 the iu'
PRODUCTION IN evidence OF the
original bin Of fading by which II wa.
alleged that Baum obtained money from
Oliver & Gfiggs. This ruling seemed %
break the prosecution NJ up, and on mo-
ton oi he county attorney "a mol. pros. wal
promptly entered. The gsboering In the
couft.room during thu proceedings wa
mainly composed OF lawyers Interested ~
the legal quettlons under conssderation,a nd
the arguments and opinions were listened
10 with the closest attention. Lohen'te'u
was present and apparently wei pleased
with the result.
THE ARGUMENTS.
90 the opening OF the court, County Az
tofney Clint resumed his argument OF inc
previous evening 10 support o! the ev!'
cencs, and fortified bis position win ols
volume OF WebstCr's Unabridged, rom
which he read 10 show thnt both MON
tn.kn nnd "Mortaup" were ludlan names
ANA that The inal oonsounut 10 neither pc
inc souuceh, they were pronounced alike.
He then concluded his argument win
reconciliation OF the main points maze the
previous evening.
Colonel Brown followed with q brief srsu'
plcot. cling Authorities aud deciBione TO
show that the evidence was admissible.
THIS closed tho d.eusslon on the part OF the
Major Wright then made the closing ar
cument for the defense, occupying about an
hour and hall, aud the matter was CUB
mi.ted 10 the court.
THE DECISION.
Judge Aldridge gave his decision at once.
There had been much time taken he said,
In the discussion, but no had no criticism
TO make on that score as 10 was evident 10
him that the matt was the pivotal point OF
the case. The iudici. don. made two different
statements rs 10 whether IL set out the bul
of ladlng In full or in substance. In one
placa where the Indictment referred 10 the
bill Il proiesstd to set II out accurately ~
full, while IN another place l: purported TO
give only the substance. The rule Of plead
ing is TO take an INDIGNANT most strongly
against the pleader. In this case the ofigi'
nal bill OF lsding was presented for nc first
time at the trial, and the
defense could not have! have taken 81,
demurrer. The difficulty which The court
found about the bill 81 iading was TO de-
termine whether II wac. as the indictment
alleged the bill Of the iPxes Il Pacific rail-
way company or Of the Missouri Pacific.
The bill 81 lading wac headed Texas d
Pacific railway" etc. Then came period,
ana on tho next line was the receipt for the
was that was receiving II. That must be
gathered from the rest OF the instru-
ment. From what appeared further
down In the body OF tue bill it
appeared that the Missouri Pacific was the
corporation really receiving the cotton.
The court bad examined the blanks OF the
latter road and had been able 10 reach no
other conclusion. The probability was
that the Missouri Pacific had had its blanks
printed 10 that manner because 1t was OPP
Grating tho Texas IL Pacific as leased line
at that point, and by having the name OF
tbs latter road on the forms confusion was
avoided. The Missouri Pacific was operating
several leased lines in the state and would
probably avoid confusion by having
pear on the various blanks used
at the different places by which the respect
i've roads ran. This seemed 10 be the ex-
PLANTATION of the psmes OF the two roads
appearing on the bill OF lading under con-
federation.
Mr.. Clint-As the court has seen fit TO
look for evidence relating TO the bill, we
weuld like an opportunity to put in testt-
mopy TO prove that the Texas & Pacific
road was the one receiving the cotton. This
could be proved by the officers at the bank
to whom Baum made his representations,
and by others. IL this bill 10 ruled ont we
c-nnot 20 Oh.
Major Wright-I trust the court will not
20 outside the record for testimony.
The court-The trouble is the indictment
save thst the DILL OF lading shows on ito face
that IL ~ q Texas e. Pacific bill II IL were
not for that allegation the evidence might
be admitted. Tho deiendsnps objection Is
sustained.
THE CASE DISMISSED.
Mr. Cint.-I suppose then. under the
law, the defendant Is entitled to o verdict,
as the state cannot go on uUder the ruling
of the court.
Colonel Brown-I would suggest
TO the county attorney that
the case be mol pressed in
have verdict OF not guilty from the jury.
Mr.. Clint-I would prefer to mol pros. tn
case.
Colonel era wiord--I ask that the Jury be
instructed to return a verdict of not guilty.
] understood the county attorney to say the
defendant had right 70 the verdict.
Mr.. Clint-l was mistaken when i spoke.
He Is not entitled 10 have a verdict will
uisa.iiss lie Case.
The court-Let mol pros. bs entered.
NOTES OF THE CASE.
This terminated the trial. The other in
dctments against Baum, over thirty in
mum her, as well as those against Csmmsck
Loheretein and Esstop, Dov 20 over until
the second Monday in May. The prosecu-
ton express determination 70 press other
CAGES against Baum and the rest OF the de-
Pendants, but as tbs point which was deci-
ded adversely TO them In this trial is likely
TO arise In most OF the other cases the pros
pect OF conviction of any OF the parties
implicated on the indictments now pending,
Id not very bright Judge Aldridge's de-
cision was the subject OF very general COM
ment among the lawyers la the court room,
and the general sentiment seemed to be
that his ruling was sound Law aud the only
decision possible under the circumstances
of the case.
The grand jury will meet on the second
Monday of this mon.b, aud the impression
prevails that an effort will be made by
the prosecution 10 obtain fresh indictments
against ihs defendents.
Colonel Brown informed the HERALD re-
porter that it was only just to County At
torney Clint to state that the latter did not
draw up the indictment against Baum
which fell through yesterday, bat that the
county attorney being pressed with bust
ness. he, Colonel Brown, had prepared the
himself
It 10 due to the prosecution to say that at
The time the bill OF indictment was drawn
the original bill OF lading was not In the
Dtate and could not be had by the prosecu-
Hon; hence the description given in the
Indictment had 10 be made up from the
bot data that could be bad at the time the
Indictment was prepared.
-~U>-
Horsford's Acid Phosphate,
As AN APPETIZER.
DR.. Norris Gibbs Howard City, Mich,
Iays; 81 am greatly pleased with 1t as .