St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-12-23

| pretcnses; such charges are false: l was
never tried on any such charges IS are pre-
| ferred, and was never summoned to appear
before that board"
| The witness was asked If he was the au-
thor of certain paragraph on the mind
| cure" which appeared in the pamphlet, and
| which was a highly embellished description
of DR.. McLean's powers as mind-reader
| and wealthy gentleman of leisure, dcvotlng
| himself to the pursuit of favorite science.
He denied it einphatically, and his counsel,
| P. W. F. Baier, attributed it to the ''brill-
liant genius OF some embryotic newspaper
reporter" The witness continuing said:
II was permitted to practice in this state
on authority of the Minnesota State Medical
board; make speciality Of female diseases;
| it was never understood by me that I joined
the Congregational church of Chicago; that
church never summoned me to appear and
fore it or any committee Of that
church; 1 attended it because it was
convenient, being close to Ily office;
In presenting my letter never intended to
become member; The Union tabernacle of
New York is an independent Presbyterian
church; L was member of it few months.
1 received a letter of dismissal as member
OF it, and also one as clergyman.
At this stage of the examination counsel
for the accused attempted to introduce let
tiers in regard to the character of DR.. Nc
Lean, but exceptions were taken thereto
and they were not allowed The cross
examination of the witness then began. He
stated that he had received two letters from
Dr. Mingins of the tabernacle, one of which
recognized him as clergyman and the
other as a layman. 1t may not be a very
common; thing to find man that is both a
physieiats and a minister, but it is unusual
where a. man happens to be both to issue
him a letter as layman and also as
clergyman. Witness joined that church on
a confession of faith because he was not
connected with any ecclesiastical body and
had been engaged in secular calling for
so long. The first letter went to the Con-
gregational church in Chicago and the other
was sent to his lodgings in New York and
then forwarded to Chicago. The one SUBJ
mitted now is the letter or copy, he could
not tell which
When asked why he couldn't positively
state whether it was the letter sent by DR..
Mingen, he said that it had been opened by
his partner, and he was inclined to think
the one in evidence was only a copy. He
denied ever having the original letter. He
did not know at the time he presented it to
the presbytery that it
WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL.
He had ascertained subsequently that it was
only copy. He did not know that the
word copy had originally been on the up
per left hand corner or how it had become
erased The name of the man who opened
the letter was Anderson. He was with
witness in Chicago. The witness said in
answer to question, that he was not pres
ent in the Congregational church in Chicago
when his name was voted upon. and did not
know he was member.
/ made no itenlized account in rendering my
bin to the lady whom / sued for the amount
of bill. l treated her for female complaint
and also gave her lessons in phscycology for
which charged her $50. 1 did not charge her
for each lesson in that science, but simply
made one charge for the entire course.
In answer to question he said that both
his license and ordination papers were
placed in the hands of this presbytery. They
We're issued to him by the Free Baptist
church of Cleveland, O., in 1874.
Mr.. Edwards, the opposing counsel, read
a letter here from DR.. Mingin of the Union
Tabernacle church of New York in which
that gentleman said that Dr.. Mclean came
to him in 1884, in destitute circumstances.
bringing letters from Scotland, which he
had no means of knowing to be either gen.
uine or forgerieS. He was admitted into
the church upon profession of faith. A
few months later he desired to go West and
Dr.. Mingin gave him letter of dismissal
soon afterwards making the discovery that
Mclean was scOundrel. He heard no
more from him until he heard from the
Chicago Congregational church.
After a severe cross examination, in
which Mclean appeared to some disadvan-
tage, frequently contradicting himself he
was excused.
Prof. Baier introduced letters comInenda-
tory of DR.. Mclean from Rev. P. NJ. Nc
Donald of the Scotch Presbyterian church.
Boston; Rev. r. B. Hull, Baptist taberna-
Gle, New York, and Rev. Z. H. Sawyer OF
the Scotch Presbyterian church, Chicago,
II.
Rev. McAfee member of the presby-
terry. was put upon the stand by the defense,
a proceeding which was objected to by a
member of the presbytery as his testimony
was not material to the case or related to it
in any manner. Prof Baier replied that he
wanted to show that Rev. McAfee sent DR.. |
Mclean to the Ninth Street Presbyterian
church, and he proposed to show
THE MOST DAMNABLE CONSPIRACY |
that had ever been organized to blacken |
innocent Christian gentleman.
After number of questions had been
asked Mr.. McAfee and replied to by him. |
relating to his first acquaintance with DR.. |
Mclean, and his efforts to connect himself |
with the Presbyterian church, the witness |
was excused and an adjournment was had |
until 7.30 p. III.
TIE EVENING SESSION.
Wban ha
supper, the counsel for the prosecution |
placed upon the stand Mrs. Payson, the
lady who kept the boarding house at No. II |
Iglehart street. where Dr.. Mclean had Sc
cured apartments for himself and the girl. |
Her testimony was in relation to the cir
of DR.. McLean's bringing the
girl to her house and engaging and occupy
ing adjoining and connecting rooms. ana
was the same i'll substance that has been
detailed before and published.
Prof. Baier objected to her testimony
but she snapped him off very quickly and
gave him TO understand that she did not
care for his objections. She said that her
suspicious had been aroused. but she had
said nothing to Dr.. Mclean until she be-
came satisfied that her suspicious were cor
rect and then she requested him to leave.
Prof. BAR attempted to cross examine the
witness, but was not very successful iii his
efforts and only succeeded in arousing the
anger OF the witness husband, who gave
his opinion. very freely in regard to Dr. Nc
Lean. For a few moments it looked as
if it would come to an encounter between
Mr.. Rayson, who was hopping mad and
DR.. Mclean. 1t resulted in Mr.. Rayson
leaving, in company with his wife. refusing
to permit her to testify or be
mixed up in the matter. He expressed his
sorrow to the presbytery at allowing his
passions TO- get the better Of him, but said
be- could mot permit his wife to be cues