St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-05-03
Detectives QuinIan and King
Convicted Of Compound
ing a Crime.
They Must Spend Three
Months in Jail and Pay
$3.50 Each.
another Meeting OF the Girl
Stpikers--The Pence Opera
Closed.
Date Of the Democratic Con-
Vention--A Woman Killed
by an Elevator.
SOMEWHAT SENSATIONAL.
Quinlan and King Convicted and
CoIweu Held for PePiury.


Colwen Held for Perjury.
There was buzz of excitement about
the city last evening when it was an
nounced that Quinlan and King, the late
detective firm, had been convicted of
compromising a crime and sentenced to
pay fine of $3.50 each and serve term
of three months in the county Jail.
The particulars of the case are
generally known as these: The de-
tectiveS were employed by the county
to ferret out unlicensed saloons, and as
the result quite number of indictments
were returned against saloonkeepers
throughout the county; but when their
trials came on most of the cases were
dismissed for want of evidence, it
appearing that the agents Of the detect
ives had "miXed up" their notes and
could not make the matter correspond
to the man. County Attorney Davis
was very wroth over it and got satisfac-
ton when Quinlan and King were in
uicted for compromising crime. 1t
seems that the feeling between these de-
tectiVeS and the city police over the old
monkey wrench case was at the bottom
of the discovery, and that Capt. Mike
Hoy and Supt. Helm were largely in
StTumental in working up the testimony
which resulted in yesterdays convic-
ton. The case chosenis that of man
named BeiSwinger, SalOonkeeper at
HaSSan. who was indicted Oh
evidence furnished the grand jury
by Jack COlwell. one of Quin-
Ian Il Kings detectives, but who
told in the trial that he had no evidence
against the accused. The state devel-
oped the fact that Quinlan and King
met BeisWinger at the Bodega saloon
,,1ixr ,AffA,
dence for 500. Beiswinger borrowed
some of the amount from Jack Walker
and paid it over. When the investiga-
ton began, a receipt was fixed up as
though BeiSWinger had paid the 500 to
John L. ByrneS for legal services and
he was told to so state to the grand jury.
This all came out in the trial of the
case yesterday, which was full of inter
est, not to say sensation. Jack COlWel1
was put Oh the stand and virtually adj
mitted having told a story to the grand
jury and then denied all knowledge
of it on the witness stand. County AttOr-
ney Davis. black as thunder cloud, de-
manded bench warrant for his arrest
as a self-confeSsed perjurer. Judge
HolllnS, the attorney for the defense,
attempted to interpOlate an objection,
but was crushed by Judge Hicks, who
refused to hear him, and ordered Col
well taken into custody. He was re-
leased later upon furnishing bonds to
the extent of $1,000.
Quimlan and King both testified for
the defense and both denied all knowl-
edge of the affair. The former said all
business was done through his book
keeper. and he knew nothing person
ally. King admitted having gone with
Colwell to the Bodego, but said he had
told the county attorney repeatedly
there was a mistake, and the man could
not be convicted.
THAT was not until he had been az
raigned. was it?"
mo, SIR"
At this point a curions scene oc-
CURED. JudgeHollinS placed the county
attorney on the stand, and wanted to
know if he was present in the grand
jury room when Quinlan and King were
indicted. Davis refused to answer, on
the ground that he was public officer.
HollinS appealed to the court and Judge
Hicks acknowledged himself puz-
zled, but finally he said he
would give the defense the
benefit of the doubt and order
the witness to answer. Davis de-
clined and Hollins wanted him punished
for contempt. Once more the court was
puzzled how to act, when a happy
IHOuSu III udWleu. lie HdDpelleu 10 see 4
member of that grand jury in the court
room and immediately ruled that Davis
need not answer, as more competent
witness was present. Assistant JamiSon
was then called and the scene was re-
peated. 1t was evidently the intention
of the defense to show up by what testi-
mOny the Indictment had been secured.
In rebuttal, BeiSwenger was recalled
and identified receipt handed him,
which was as follows:
MINNEAPOLIS, Mimi, Oct. 90, 1SS7.-Re-
ceived from q. Beiswenger to sum of one
hundred dollars (Sl00), for which l agree to
defend the said Beiswenger and William
Bomgaard on two indictments for selling
liquor withouthcense. JOHN T. BYRNEs
This, he said, was given him in Feb
ruary, 1888, though dated October, 1887.
1t was given him in Byrnes' office, with
instructions to tell the grand jury he
paid the money as attorney fees, but he
had gone before that body and told the
whole truth.
This ended the testimony, and the
case was argued and submitted. A
verdict of guilty was returned, and the
court imposed fine of $3.50 and term
of three months Imprisonment, with
six months longer if the fine was not
paid. A stay of thirty days was OBJ
tanned, and the defendants gave bond
III the sum of $1,000 each.