Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1890-12-12
CASES IN COURT.
The Van HOuten Case Disposed of in
the District COurt-Defend-
ant Discharged.
Hibbard, Bartlett & Spencer VS.. Cap
ital National Bank Still
,a on Trial.
District Court,
TFrom Fridays Daily, 5th.l

- District Court.
IFrom Fridays Daily, 5th.l
On the assembling of court yesterday
morning, Mr.. Boucher asked for further
time in which to make a motion for con-
tinuance in the case of the State VS.. Van
Houten. MI. Newton objected to further
time, but Mr.. Boucher said he would be
ready after the noon recess with his
motion.
The case OF Hubbard, Spencer & Bart
lett VS.. the Capital National bank was
then taken up. BY agreement of both
sides, Mr.. o. L. SWEET was excused from
further attendance at this term, and Mr..
Riley was chosen in his place. The jury,
as finally settled upon, was as follows:
Messrs. I. Will. John Salmon, l.. D. Bailey,
George Price, Albert Richards, George
,Gussner, W. G. Steiber, Peter Englin, E. K.
hanson, John MCGOWAN, G. H. Dyke and
B. Riley.
A tilt between Messrs. Jamison and
Francis then took place over an application
made by Mr.. Jamison to amend the answer
in the case. Mr.. Jamison read the pro-
POoCHl AAIo "uuNS ~ SiuASSu /
Jamison with making statements that
were not in accordance with the facts, and
with a lack of professional courtesy. Mr..
Jamison replied and denied the charges
made. Judge Francis claimed that Mr..
Jamison was trying to mlslead the court.
torney but as a stakeholder of the bank,
had a few words to say, and he was fol-
lowed by Mr.. :Iewton. The court decided
TO allow the amendment to be made.
Judge Francis then moved for a cOntinu-
ance of the case. on the ground that they
were not prepared to go to trial with the
amendment. Judge Winchester decided to
grant a continuance. and the attorneys
argued the question as to, what, if any,
terms should be imposed. Judge Francis
asked for 800 for expenses of a witness
n an attorneys fee of $50. The court
fixed the term fee at $75, and unless this
was paid the amendment would not be
allowed.
The court then adjourned for the noon
recess, the defendant to announce its de.
cision as to whether it would pay the term
fee, on the reassembling of court.
At 2 O'Clock court reassembled and Mr..
Jamison said the defendant had decided to
paw the term fee and amend their answer,
so the case was continued.
THE VAN HoUTEN CASE.
Mr.. Boucher then addressed the court
with a view of securing a continuance of
the case of the State VS.. Van Houten. He
read an affidavit made by himself, in which
he states that he believes the defendant
mas burned books which we're essential to
a proof Of the case, and because Of the des-
t%ruction of the evidence contained in these
books, it is necessary that certain witness
es be summoned who are not now within
,,n0an hut Nuyh0 nnvN hA cnnN1r II n fhn Nnvt
term of court. Mr.. Boucher, after reading
his affidavit, said that while it was true
that the defendant is entitled to a speedy
trial, at the same tim something is due the
people. He desired to call witnesses: from
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.. of banks at PelIa.
Ia, and individuals who were creditors of
the firm of Van Houten Bros. & Little-tO
prove facts which could have been proven
by the books that had been destroyed.
Mr.. Newton for the defendant, earnestly
protested against the motion. He charac.
Ierised as a mere pretense, the charge in
the indictment, that on the 18th of March
1888, the defendant obtained by false pre-
lenses, the paltry sum of $19O.63. For
more than a year after that date he walked
the streets as an honorable citizen. In
May 1890, the grand jury found an indict-
ment against him, and now here in Deem
Der the state pleads for more time to make
out its case. He looked upon the whole
g. sJSAOl1 GJ ~ bAoAo ~
fuge. Where is the testimony that war
ranted the grand jury in returning this in
dictment?
Judge Winchester quoted the law bear
ing upon the points raised, and said that
this was an important case to both the de
fendent and the state. He was not salts
fed that the state had made ont a case for
o%ntinuance. He was. not conyinc, d
from the afidavits and showing that hau
been made, that it would be exercising the
discretion which is lodged in the court in
melting out justice, to grant a continuance
and he therefore denied the motion for a
continuance.
Mr.. Boucher: I then ask that the i'll
dictment be dismissed for the reasons
which [ have set forth in the affidavit to
obtain a continuance n for the further
reason hat by an oversight and clerical
error there is a defect in the indictm zen
which, 1 fear, may prove fatal. The
amounts were left blank in the Indictment
to be filled out afterward, and they were
not filled out. This, l fear, will prove
fatal.
After some further discussion on the
part of the attorneys interested, Judge
Winchester made the following order:
The action is dismissed for the reasons
stated, and under the provisions of chapter
IA of the criminal code OF, procedure. The
bail is exonerated and the defendant is dis
charged. .=- s.-
5 AN ARRANGEMENT.
Joseph M. Trammel was arraigned or a
charge of disposing of personal property
that was m%ortgaged. Mr.. Jamison ap'
peared for the defendant. The defendant
was given until this morning to plead.
ANOTHER CASE SETTLED.
The case of Goodkind vs.. Galloway came
next and a jury was called. The attorneys
got together and settled it without a WORD
of evidence being given.
BLY, VS.. HEALY.
This inevitable cast of Bly, VS.. Healy wa
mentioned again and again, and unless the
states attorney has business to occupy the
jury this morning, it looks as though this
cas- would be called.
from Saturdays Daily.] f
In the, district court yesterday morning
Joseph Nj. Trammel pleaded guilty to thu
charge Of selling mortgaged chattels. Mr.
Jamison appeared for the defendant. HI
said that while the defendant was techni
cally guilty Of the offense charged. there is
every reason to believe that his mind wa
h mott in such a condition as to warrant thu
belief that he was mentally accountable