St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-11-09
THAT UIHLEIN DEED.
Big Legal Brains Engaged In
Unearthing the Crimes
Alleged.
Stensgaard, Who Is on Trial,
Shows Up Cool as q Gu
eumbeP.
Two Heavy Legal Points
Which the Court Over
ruled.
August Uiblein Gives Court
and Attorneys a German
Lesson.


twelfth Juror was sworn and then an
adjournment was taken until 2 o'clock.
The jury is composed of: George o..
Austin, Archie S. Babcoek, Gilbert FL.
Barbour, Charles l.. Windsor, Christian
\. Blakley. John G. Barwise, w. O..
Merrill, Albert III. Merrick. Ernest F..
Lemke, A. j. Rodgers, j. n. WilguS and
G. P. Metcalf.
Judge Brill's court room was fairly
crowded when the trial was resumed in
the afternoon. Many of the curious
spectators took seats inside the railing
and crowded out people who had bust
ness there. Mr.. StenSgaard. the defend
ant, looked as bright and confident as
ever. He occupied seat beside those
of his lawyers, John w. Willis, Henry
Johns, George NJ. Nelson and A. K.
Speel. County Attorney Egan was as
sisted by J. j. MeCafferty. After Mr..
Egan stated his case and read the indict'
ment to the jury. the defendants coun-
sci moved that the prosecuting attorney
be compelled to specify upon which of
the two charges made in the indictment
he intended to proceed.
A LEGAL TECHNICALITY.
"The indictment" said Mr..
lection of dupIicity. II it
charges an offense at all it charges two
separate and distinct OffenseS, namely:
The Offense of 'uttering' and the offense
of putting off, and the prosecution
should be compelled to elect upon
which one of these two charges it will
proceed. An indictment charging two
Offenses is bad for duplicity, and the OBJ
lection can be taken by demurrer, or by
motion, on the trial to compel the prose-
cution to elect upon which charge it
will proceed. This indictment charges
two Offenses as distinctly as though it
charged forging and altering and such
an indictment is bad. There is marked
distinction between the charge of ut
tering' and that of putting off, To
offer forged instrument as genuine
is 'uttering,' whether it is accepted
or not by the person to whom it is Of
fered. But the words put Off in a
statute are not satisfied by mere ut
tering or by tender.
ANOTHER OBJECTION.
Mr.. Nelson read number of auth0ri-
ties to substantiate the position taken,
but his motion was Overruled by the
court. An exception was noted.
August UihleIn, of Milwaukee, was
then called to the witness stand. He is
the man whose name is signed to the So
called forged deed which Stensgaard
is accused of uttering. Mr.. Uihlein is
also the owner of the property which
the deed purpOrted to convey. He is
the secretary of the Joseph Schlitz
Brewing company, and is supposed to
be millionaire.
"What is your name?" was the first
question asked by the states attorney.
''Wait minute, there-we object"
shouted Mr.. Nelson. mo evidence
should be introduced under this indict-
ment, for the reason that it does not
state facts sufficient to constitute pub
lie offense. First-The Indictment does
not mention the persons which the ac-
cused intended to defraud. or that they
are unknown. Second-The indictment
does not state or allege that there is in
actual existence any such land as that
described in the indictment; and Third
The indictment does not state that
August Uihlein was the owner of or had
any interest in the land described in
the indictment. 1t Is true that the penal
code, section $50, provides that when
an intent to defraud constitutes a part
of the crime, it is not necessary to aver
or prove an intent to defraud any par
ticular person. This cannot be con-
stitutional. 1t does not apprise the de-
PENDANT what the charge is which he
must meet. and this cannot be dis
pensed with even by statute. The III
dictment must show OH its face that the
land mentioned in the indictment, set
out in the indictment. has an existence;
otherwise the deed would be of no legal
validity if true, and would be appar-
emily incapable of effeetlng fraud, and
unless the indictment shows that the
instrument in question could be made
available in law to work the intended
fraud or injury it is bad. The indict-
ment must show on its face that August
Uihlein was the owner of or had some
interest in the lands described in the
deed"
MIR. Nelson consumed over an hour in
making his argument and reading
authorities. The points he made were
interesting, and he argued them in an
eloquent manner. The prosecution was
allowed, however, to proceed with the
examination. The defense took an ex-
ception to the ruling of the court.
MR.. UIHLEIN NAME.
Mr.. Uihlein, after stating his name,
PLACE Of residence and business. said
that he was introduced to Stensgaard
in saloon on Fourth street, this city,
about two or three years ago, but never
had any conversation with him.
ibid you ever sign this paper?" asked
Mr.. McCafferty as he handed the wit
ness the deed which StenSgaard is al
legged to have altered.
"'Bject," shouted Mr.. Willis, ''the
deed shown the witness is not the one
set out in the indictment"
Eyes, it's" said the states attorney.
"But," said Mr.. Willis; sit has been
altered. There is some writing on that
deed which is not on the deed set out on
the indictment"
Judge Brill examined the deed and
then overruled the objection.
No, l never signed that paper" said
Mr.. Uihlein.
"Do you know any other August
Uihlein living in Milwaukee, was
asked the witness.
mo. sir"
The crOSS-examinatiOn conducted by
Mr.. Willis was sharp and quick, and
the memory of the witness was shown
to be somewhat defective.
''Isn't it true" asked Mr.. Willis.
that there is another man named Au-
gust UihleIn. whose home is In Mil
waukee?"
"Yes, but he is not there now"
NO, L OcllSNo H0 - III 6SIiH31y,
studying art" put in the lawyer.
"No, sir, he has returned from
Europe and is now in Ohio studying the
art of making lager beer, remarked the
witness with laugh.
when was it you met Mr.. Stems
gaard?"
sit was In either 1887 or 1sSS-or &c
might have been in 1856. l was in St.
Paul and was making the rounds among
our customers. Mr.. Sitman. our local
agent. was with me and introduced
Stensgaard.n
Ibid you meet any other st. Paul pee
pie while here that time?''
''Yes, sir; l met quite a number of
Them"
"Well, just name some Of them.n
81 can't remember Them"
How is it that you remember Mr..
Stensgaard and forget the other people
to whom you were introduced"
well. l was particularly impressed
with Mr.: Stensgaard's appearance.
ibid he wear glasses?"
81 don't remember
"How was he attired?"
Il don't remember"