St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-02-06
The CASE DISMISSED.
Not Even a Shadow Of Sus-
pieion Against
Sehutt.
An Interesting Revival of
"The DeeStpiet
Skule."
The Horseshoers and Wagon
makers Perfect an Or
ganization.
The Court House Commission
Will Pay Less Interest
Hereafter.

The Schutt case came up again yes
terday morning, and the work of COM
pleting the jury was proceeded with so
rapidly that the number Was complete
and the case begun at 1920 by the ad-
dress of County Attorney Jamison to
the jury. He stated that the case would.
be simple one, and the evidence short
That the first question to be determined
was whether or not the stamp
upon the back of the note
Sas a forgery. In explanation
he said that the stamp upon the back
OF the note made material change in
the contract, making the man whose
name was signed, guarantee the pay
ment of it. The next step, he said,
was to show that Mr.. Blaisedell never
saw the stamp upon the note until he
saw 1t in the grand jury room during
the investigation. He then said that
the fact that Mr.. Schutt had negotiated
the note would be shown. and it only
| remained to prove whether or not the
| stamp had been placed there with his
knowledge.
| He went over the business relations
| of Julius Schultz and J. Frank COLON,
and explained how Mr.. Schultz negoti-
ated COllom's paper. "What we will
attempt to show said he, ''is that in
| this case julius Schutt knew that the
note was forgery, and that the stamp
| was placed u on the back with his
knowledge, and that he afterwards ne
gotialed it. We shall show that the
| stamp placed upon the note was the
| work of stamp i'll Mr.. SHUTS Office"
| He said that he had paper in his
| possession which had a stamp upon il; a
mi n mo Ia tANrt t1an inn nIa r.,
| office, and that it correspondent exactly
with the one upon the back of the note
in question. He said that they would
| not admit that the signature of Mr..
| BlaiSdtll was genuine, but that they
| were not allowed under the present in
dlctment to say that it was not. Mr..
Blaisdell was then called. and the
white-haired old gentleman, whose I'M
certain signature has been the cause of
so much controversy, took the stand,
and the questioning began.
Are you acquainted with julius
Schutt?''
Il never saw him until l met him in
the court room at the other trial"
did you ever have business dealings
with him?''
mo"
Were you ever in his office?''
mo, ST."
The note was showed to him and he
was asked: rs that your act?'
The defense objected to the question,
but after some argument it was al
lowed. In answer Mr.. Blaisdel said
that he neither put the stamp upon the
note, nor authorized any one else to
do so.
In cross-eXaminatiOn Wilson asked:
did you not some time in August in
thn RnStnn hlpaE thQcn fv,f,
Did not Mr.. Merrill at that time show
you them; and did you not say to him
that you did not know he would have to
go to Mr.. Davis?''
Il did not see the paper, though he
! wanted to show it to me. | told him
did not care to see it, and that he must
go TO Mr., Davis"
'Have you any recollectian of the
time upon which the endorsement was
placed on the nOte?"
mo, don't know anything about it,
''Do you know when it was put on2''
mo"
At the beginning of the redirect, Mr..
JamisOn asked to be allowed to intro
duce the other note that had been re-
ferred to. Mr. Wilson objected, and
Jamison argued the point. He thought
that he should be permitted to Introduce
the notes negotiated by MIR. Schutt to
prove guilty knowledge. Mr.. Wilson
objected on Its introduction on the order
In which the evidence was being intro
duced.
A. E. Merrill. the holder of the note,
was the next witness. He stated that
Aug. IL he was in Mr.. Schutt's Office in
Temple Court, and that gentleman
asked him if he did not want to buy
some of the Collom- Blaisdell paper,
and that he stated that he would take
| $500 of it, but could not use it unless
| 1t had waivure of protest upon it. He
| did not remember whether he had been
| shown the note at that time or not.
He stated that the note had been de-
| llvered to him on June IL, and identified
| the pOte in question as the one.
"Did you see Mr.. Schultz on Oct. "a %
eyes"
"Did he hand you anything Pr
ayes, he gave me stamp
"What did you do with it ?"
81 made an impression upon piece
| of paper, something like that you have
| In your hand"
WAS this the paper %
Eyes. that is it."
Ibid you carry it away with you?''
81 did"
"From where did Mr.. Schutt take the
stamp?''
From drawer in Mr.. Wyman's por-
ton of the Office"
Mr.. Blaisdell was recalled to identify
the second note. He said that he did
not see the note, and did not say
whether it was genuine or not. Here
the state rested, although it was to have
| produced another witness who was to
testify as to the letter upon the waiv-
ure, but Mr.. JepSOn, who was to have
| given this evidence, did not show up.
| After few moments Judge Shaw
arose and said: "When we are called
upon in our defense to explain just how
| and when the stamp was put upon this
note. we shall be able to do so. But we
| have right to demand that before we
| are put upon our defense that the state
shall make out prima facie case" He
therefore asked that it be dismissed.
Judge Hicks said that the prosecu-
| ton had failed to make ont case and
that there was not even suspicion
against Mr.. Schutt, and therefore Or
dered a dismissal.
Had the trial continued the defense,
it is said, was prepared to prove that
the waivure had been placed upon the
note when it WIS in blank form, the day
before MIR. Merrill had agreed to take
$4,000 of the Collom-Blaisdell paper if
the waivure Of protest was ON it.
Mr.. Schutt feels very sore over the
whole affair, as he thinks it is an Unjust
ice that he should be put to such an ex.
pense In trial. where the facts show
that there was so little ground for a
case against him.
After the case was dismissed, County
| Attorney JamiSon washed his hands of
the whole matter by stating that the
testimony given was not what he had
been led to expect.
/ MEN OF MIIGOIE