St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-11-12
His differences Cut a Big
Figure in Giving His
Evidence.
He Doesn't Know the Charge.
Five Months After His
Arrest.
Stensgaard's Testim ony In
the Municipal Court Is
Admitted.

|
testimony was strongly against the de-
Tense, but was very much shaken by the
REORGANIZATION. George N. Hillman,
official stenographer of the courts, was
| OH the witness stand most of the day.
! He was put on the stand by
the prosecution for the pur-
pose of introducing the transcript
| OF the evidence given by StenSgaard at
the preliminary hearing i'll the munic-
| ipal court. The defendants counsel
made strenuous objections to the admit
tance of the transcript, but Judge Brill
ruled that the material part of the teSti-
mony taken in the municipal court
| might be introduced. Mir. McCafferty
| then read portions of the transcript,
| while Mir. Hlllman, the witness, held his
original shorthand report. Mr.. Hill
| man SwOre that the testimony
as read by MIR. McCatferty
| agreed with the shorthand notes.
The states attorney only read that pOr-
ton of the testimony which reflected
discredlt upon Mir. StenSgaard. and sub
sequently Mr.. Nelson read the other
parts of the transcript. The object the
| state had in introducing the evidence
taken at the preliminary hearing was to
bring out the fact that at the former
| trial Stensgaard stated that the man
who signed the deed was stranger;
| that the deal was cOnSummated i'll one
day, and that he (StenSgaard) paid the
| stranger, whom he supposed to be
| Uihlen, $500 in cash, $500 by note in
dOrsed by Draper, and ,0O0 worth OF
Gogebic mining stock.
| Young Carver was called to the stand
about o'clock. On direct examination
he gave his testimony in a smooth, even
manner, and many of those in the court
expressed the opinion that it was we'll
| rehearsed story. When the crOss-eX-
animation was in progress the youth
| was decidedly impertinent and Hippant.
| His testimony TN direct examination
was substantially as followS:
| Mr. McCafferty-HOwi long have you
| known Stensgaard?
Witness-About four years.
did you have talk with him last
June?"
"Yes. | met him on Seventh street
aboutS O'Clock one highland he stopped
| and asked me if had sold my Dakota
property. l told him L had not. He
| then said he had something | wanted,
and referred to block - of Auerbach d
| Hands addition. He proposed to trade
me tire property. He said it belonged
| to Mr.. Uihlein, of Milwaukee, and that
| he had man 10 represent Uihlein in
| the trade"
.'How came he to mention anything
| about man to represent Uihlein?'
.Nhy, | asked him about the deed
| and he said it would be all right; that
he had man to represent Uihlein.
| On croSS-eXamination Mr.. Johns
| asked:
1"You and Stensgaard were in jail to-
gether?" arar-.,e
Eyes" 4ar,..
You are now out on bail?"
Yes"
"You have not had your hearing
yet?'' @ IS
"No."
.Why do you come here to volunteer
| this testimony to the state?'
Il do it upon the advice of Cy Well
| ington. He told me to go to the county
attorney and make clean breast of it,"
"a clean breast of it?'
"Of what l knew about the Stems
gard case"
"Why did Mr.. Wellington advise you
| to do this? 1t is not customary for GRIM
| inal lawyers to send evidence to the
| county attorney"
Il employed Mr.. Wellington for my
| defense, and he told me the best way
for ME to get out of trouble would be to
| make a clean breast OF this matter"
| WAS anything said about Draper In
your compensation with Stensgaard"'
Yes, his name was mentioned"
"Stensgaard didn't say anything
about Draper signing the deed?'
.sNo. Stensgaard didn't say anything
| further than that he had man to re-
| present Uihlein."
And you inferred that Stensgaard
meant to have Draper sign the deed?"
| .YeS"
"Why did you suppose that Stems
| act?'
| "Simply because he mentioned ORA
| per'S name"
Ibid you ever know Draper to COM
| NIT forgery"
mo"
"Why did you think he would do it.
| thep?''
because L didn't think he was bit
too honest to do it."
"Why?'
because he was a trader"
| s.Traders are not necessarily forgers,
are they?"
No"
"Isn't it fact that you witnessed the
| signature of one Carlson to forged
deedP"
sNo, sir: did not"
"Under the name of Jackson?"
.sNo, SIR"
"What did you have to do with it?"
| Scarcely anything"
well. what did you have to do with
it?"
Nothing"
"YOu knew CarlS0n?"
! sYeS."
"Quite intimately acquainted with
| him?''
| ..YeS, he worked on our farm"
"Are you acquainted with Partello3"
'Did you ever witness deed forged
by him?''
'Do you know Tall?"
| "Yes."
Ever witness deed forged by himP"
"No."
"Dian't you state to Mr.. Fishleigh, of
/ Fishleigh IL Gordon, that you knew
nothing about the Stensgaard case?"
"NO."
"Have you been promised any i'm
munity from prosecution for testifylng
here?"
| No"
.What Is the charge against you?"
| "Grand larceny in the second de-
gree"
"Of what?"
| Don't KNOW"
"What do they charge you of steal
ing?"
| "Don't know"
| els it true that you have been under
| arrest for five months and don't know
| what you are charged of Stealing?"
| 81 told you two or three times l didn't
| know"
| "Well, tell me two or three times
MORE"
Mr.. Johns severa, times asked the
witness to give the exact words used in
| the conversation he claimed to have had
with Stensgaard, but the witness stated
| that he did not remember them.
| .'You do remember, however, that
| Stensgsard said he had a man to repre-
sent Uihlein?"