St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-08-07
{. W. ALDRICH is HELD,
And the Grand Jury Will Investigate the
Charges Against Him.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

The Arguments Of the Prosecution
and Defense Based on
Theory.
The argument in the cases against E.
W. Aldrich for receiving goods stolen
from the stores of III. o. Peterson and
Winecke & DOerr were heard by Judge
MahOney in the municipal court yester-
day afternoon. The defendant, with a
toothpick in his mouth, leaned back
comfortably in his chair in corner and
watched the proceedings.
Mr.. Robinson spoke in his behalf for
about an hour. His argument was
mainly in the view of theory based
upon the assumption of what he called
had acknowled he had been the re-
ceiver of stolen goods; whose state
ments could not be reliedaupOn, and
whose evidence was not corroborated.
He denounced De Young severely,
and then went on to account quite
plauSibly for circumstances which right
on their face seem to show that Aldrich
had knowledge the goods were
stolen. Some of his leading points
were as follows: How was
Aldrich to know the goods were stolen?
He had been in the habit of picking up
bargains wherever he found them, and
was in the habit of purchasing from
pawnbrokers, SO the transactions with
De Young were not unusual. De
Young had been impeached instead of
nnrrnhNrafQH q
the evidence, pointing out inconsistent
cles and contradictions. Aldrich took
the silks to his house because he wished
to keep them clean. Another ching,
three-fourths of the stolen goods were
placed upon Aldrich'S premises while
he was 1000 miles away. His speedy
return, when he found he was charged
with receiving stolen goods, showed an
indication of his honesty. He shipped
some cigars, it is true, to New York.
but he did it in an open manner, show
ing he did not know they were stolen.
Aldrich's denial that he had ever
seen Davidson, although Detectives
Howard and Doyle testified they had
peach Aldrich's testimony. AS he
could have met Davidson Incidentally
without knowing who he was.
The statement of De Young that ne
knew the goods were stolen, and had
told Aldrich the goods were stolen, and
there is no confederation, was the sole
point upon which the prosecution
could hang its case.
In closing he made an appeal to the
court not to besmirch the character of
Aldrich upon the unsupported teSti-
mOny of De Young, and quoted num-
Der of authorities as to what the state
should be required to prove.
THE PROSECUTIONS ARGUMENT.
Assistant county attorney followed.
He reviewed the evidence very infinitely
and was very forcible in his remarks.
although he did not attack Aldrich. He
said that under the statute the state
was only required to show that the de-
PENDANT must have understood that the
property which he received was stolen.
Viewing the whole evidence he be-
lieved one of the most gigantic 'fenceS"
in the Northwest had been uncovered,
and a man who for years had received
stolen goods with one hand and had
shaken the hands of honest men with
the other had been exposed. The first
rule for the reception of evidence should
be that the goods had been received by
Aldrich; the second rule, that the de-
PENDANT had probable reason to know
ing them. This might be shown induct-
lively by the fact that property had been
purchased way below its market value.
Belief without actual knowledge would
be sufficient to hold the defendant
De Young, an impecuniouS second
hand dealer, presents himself
with some valuable property, which
he could not reasonably be
supposed to have. De Young, whose
reputation and business Aldrich knew,
sells twenty-three dozen of silk hand
kerchiefS for S95 and silk valued at
$1,000 for $500. Next he comes with
1000 cigars worth 5000. which he sells
for $40; next he sells $50 worth of cut
Still, Aldrich says he did not suspect
these goods were stolen. He takes the
silk to his home beyond the sight of the
officers and shipped the cigars to New
York, where they were originally made.
Everything that he bought from De
Young he got out of sight in some way,
Aldrich's reasons for his transactions
were next gone over and diSSected.
Rather strange, was it not, that Mr..
Aldrich did not read the newspaper ac-
counts of the rObberieS at which time
the goods were stolen? That a man
with his business experience of twelve
years in the city should not have sup
posed they were stolen was propos-
ferrous.
Mr.. Jamison then went over the testi-
mony, putting together the links in the
chain of evidence corroborating De
Young'S testimony.
AT his conclusion Judge Mahoney said
he was satisfied that the case was one
for the attention of the grand jury, and
held the defendant in $1,400, 500 on
each charge.
The NicolIet Illumination.