St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-11-17
LOUIS is AT LIBERTY.
The Jury in the Stensgaard
Case Finds a Verdict OF
Aequittal.
Judge Egan, for the State.
Strongly Sums Up the
Evidence.
John w. Willis Makes a STIR
Plea 81 mining Up the
Defense.
Scenes in the Court Room
When the Verdict Was
Announced.

Louis I. Stensg aard is a free and
happy man to-day. The clouds of pub
lie accusation which have lowered over
his head for the past five months were
dispelled yesterday when a jury of
twelve men, good and true. pronounced
him guiltless. The verdict of
acQuittal was by no means
unexpected, but some surprise
would have been manifested had the
jury convicted the man. MeSsrs. Egan
and Mum worked hard and c0nscien-
tiOusly to convict Stensgaard, but they
were unable to adduce the testimony
sufficient to prove their case beyond a
reasonable doubt, as the law requires.
The prosecuting attorneys were un-
doubtedly as firmly convinced of the
guilt as MeSSrS. Willis. Johns and Mel
son were of the innocence of the de-
PENDANT.
Court opened promptly at 9 O'Clock
yesterday morning. and MIR. Egan i'm
mediately began to sum up the states
case. He said:
JUDGE EGAN's ADDRESS.
1t is wonderful that in this testimony IL Is
absolutely revealed and testified to by Draper
that he met A. Uihiein before he ever put an
advertisement in The GLOBE.
That he meets Uihiein One week before he
ever put an advertisement in the paper, ana
The entire testimony shows that Stensgaard
proffeFed to use Draper as trader OF the
stock and that Uhlein by no possibility
could have any knowledge OF such fact until
after the advertisement Gentlemen OF the
Jury. you have the financial and social status
of both parties, Draper and Stensgaard. NO
Talne set on the stock; regarded as worthless.
They meet to do whats Trade worthless stock.
Draper did not know, nor is there any eyi-
dence as to, the consideration. he never
met Uihlein but once, and even then ne oid
not have any written memorandum OF the
description of property. StenSgaards teStl-
mony about KNOWLEDGE OF the consideration
Is false II is false, because Draper admits
in his testimony. long before the delivery OF
the abstract, that he had no knowledge OF
what property the proposed tlhleln was
going to trade. StenSgaaIds testimony must
be false before the abstract. because Draper
himself admits, and so states. that he never
had any written description of the property /;
that he didn't know the property prior 10 the
| delivery of the abstract.
Judge Egan then devoted his time to
showing that no reputable business
would have so hurriediy closed deal.
He pictured the scene in Draper'S Office
Ia place to catch suckers" he called
it-aiid then launched the walls of his
sarcasm and invPetive On the tranSac-
ton and all concerned. Then he gave
the scene in the Office of Willis, Nelson
81 Speel, and charged that SteDsgaard
had hoodwinked them, as he had the
others, and had lied wnen he said he
must have the abstract in twenty-four
hours. He grew satirical when he men
toned the members OF the firm, then
continued:
The abstract was delivered on June IL.
Spiel testified that they had 1t on the 11th.
and il lay there a week or ten days. Yet
StenSgaard Is impatient for money, and he
tells Spiel that he must know whether the
title is good or not in twenty-four or forty
eight hours, because he has got to be ready
to close; and yet the testimony IS clear ana
convincing and conclusive that Uihlein had
not appeared on the scene at all: had not
communicated with Draper; he had received
no note from Draper until the 2ist; and the
villain Stensgaard lies when he tells Spiel that
he must know whether the title is
good in tweuty-four or forty-eight hours.
Stensgaard goes to the Title Insurance eom-
pany and interviews Taylor and Bissel. lie
goes to Bissell on the 22a, presents his deed.
il is delivered and he is told to record II in
the afternoon. He flies to the auditors office
he flies to the CITY treasurers once, ana II
is left with the register OF deeds on Saturday,
the 22d at 3: 80 O'clock for record with in
structions not 10 publish 1t. Note the secrecy
of the whole transaction. Quickness, Sc
creey fraud trailed along every step OF the
transaction from beginning to end. Let us
look at Stensgaard's story OF the payment OF
the money Saturday night by Spiel Nothing
would satisfy the memorable rapacity OF
Stensgaard but the cash. Money! His own
safe wouldn't hold his money in his palmy
days when he had no money: has held 1t
sometimes, he says, ana he carries $4,000 in
cash to his home. and he is uncertain
whether he lefi il in the safe or whether he
with such carelessness. Monday noon he
flies to Diapers office to pay $50. Draper
| knows that he has got the money; there is a
| knowledge of conspiracy between them both
| all the time. permeatlng every act OF theirs.
In the afternoon-lueky, fortunate-bOgus
\ Uihlein turns up-Uihlein, whom Stems
| gard did not know until the 21st
of June; Uihleln, whose address he did not
know, nor where he lived, nor where he
could communicate with him, where he
could pay him, nor was there any place
fixed for the payment of the note-the yalu
| able note Endorsed by Draper. No witness;
| and Stensgaard, with $4,5O0 in his posfes-
sion, gives Draper cheek for his commits
! sion. What for? To make up a fictitious
| case of genuineness; while he gives the bo-
! gus Uihlein 81, 500 in cash and takes no re-
| ceipt
Why such hurry and anxiety? He had ten
days to pay the note, and the great insolvent
/ Stensgaard was in hurry to pay il. He is
| anxious about the policy. Stensgaard testi-
| fies that he knows the lot WAS worth more
than he was paying forit"
THE DEFENSE TALKS.
Mr.. Wills opened his argument as
| follows;
Gentlemen Of the Jury: The close OF this
| tedious and protracted inquiry must be wit
4 messed by you with considerable satisfac-
| ton The length of time which this investi-
CATION has occupied, and your evident wear
| ipess. admonishes me 10 be brief. l shall be
4 brief think in so doing can be consistent
| with my obligations to the court to you gen.
1 tiemen, and to the community. / do not
stand here clothed with high office: an
| Office sacred in its character, requiring
| justice, fairness and impartiality in the in
| vestigation of supposed otfenses; but stand
| here an officer of the court, counselor
| at law. an adviser. an advocate in legal
| affairs; and gentlemen, you, many Of you.
| know my character, and when L tell you
| that / stand here not only profoundly i'm.
| pressed with the innocence of my friend
Stensgaard, but absolutely convinced OF that
| innocence; knowing him as / do through a
| long couse of dealing. through intimate asSo-
citation. and through advice upon legal mat
ters which never saYored of falsity. deceit OF
| disSimulation. and when l say to yon in all
| the solem sacredness. which my sense of pro-
| feSsiOual duty can impose that believe him
| to be absolutely Innocent / do 30 with q
full understanding OF all the facts and cir
cumstances surrounding this important
| cause.
Now, gentlemen. what did the state un.
used TO refer to the prosecution because the
prosecution is in the name of the state. 1t is
supposed that the state proseeutes this man
The state undertakes to prove, first, that a
deed has been forged: secondly, that Stems
gard knew that the deed was forged-noI
that he might have inferred it; that he might
have supposed It. or that some other person
might have said it was forged-but that he
absolutely knew it to be forged; that know
ing IL to be forged deed. he took 1t and of
tered it or passed it off on tht
title insurance company. Further
more, that the Offering and putting
| OFF was done with intent to defraud- Each
one OF these elements is necessary 10 eonsti
tute the offense. First, the forgery; second
the knowledge that it was a forgery-knowl
edge which must be brought home to stems
gard: third the uttering: that is, the put
| ting off or Observation-Disclosures the titlt
insurance company, and finally the intent tt
defraud. The law, gentlemen: which we arr
| all sworn to obey, states that in crimina
prosecution the defendant is required t.
prove nothing. The law holds that tbs
prosecution must, by competent evidence
| establish beyond reasonable doubt, ever.
fact necessary to convict. There must no
l.