The Coeur d'Alene press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1892-1907, 1893-04-08
DISTRICT COURT.
Resume Of Proceedings in Judge Hole
mans Court.


When the case Of the state vs.. Edwin
L. Minis was called Saturday the defend
ant failed to appear and his bondsnien
looked uneasy. Judge Holleman re-
marked: II will have 10 declare the
bond forfeited again IL the defendant
does not attend to business" Minis,
after half an horr, appeared before tho
judge, who remarked: MIR. Minis, You
seem to take things pretty easy for ~
man charged with serious crime
Minis excused himself by stating he
had oversight himself, which explana-
ton was satisfactory to the court, and
the trial commenced. Minis entered a
plea of not guilty. Judge Hagan mtv d
that the court dismiss the indictment
on the grounds that the same was found
by the grand jury on depositiens taken
before Judge Hoban, of Bonner's Ferry,
at the time the alleged frauds were
perpetrated, and were not properly
certified by the justice. The motion
was promptly overruled and the defense
noted an exception. The demurrer OF
the defendant was also overruIed and
the case set for April 5.
On Wednesday mornibg the case was
called. The defendant took his seat
behind his counsel with a confident air.
Judge Albert Hagan, Charles W. Iicale
and Attorney, Robert +. Mcfarland, of
this city, formed a veritab!e bulwark
behind which the defendant seemed to
take much comfort.
Mr.. Charles W. O'Neii. the district
attorney, well aware of the task before
him, braced himself, and with resolute
mien went at the selection of the jury.
At 40 O'Clock p. m. the panel was
completed and the jury sworn, and after
examining Witnesses J. c. McRae, J. G.
darkness and II. l.. Carlton, whose
testimony went to show that there was
fraud perpetrated, but it was rather
difficult TO connect it with the defend
ant, the court adjourned for the day.
The trial of the Minis case was &c
sumed Thursday morning. To the sur
prise of everybody Julius Runkle, the
main witness for the state. had arrived
and appeared in court. Upon request
o. District Attorney O'Neil the attach
ment againrt Runkle was dismissed. 4
greater surprise, however, was in store
for the court. When Runkle, after
answering the preliminary questions as
TO name, age, etc. was asked what had
passed between himself and the defend
ant in certain room in kaiser's hotel
AZ Boomers Ferry on tie morning of
the election declined 10 answer, stating
tina, he would criminate himself If he
should tell. Mr.. O'Neil insisted on hinl
answering the question. but the court
he'd that the witness had that right for
his OWN protection. whereupon the dis
trict attorney asked for time to look up
authorities, and the court took a recess.
The refusal of Ruukle TO answer is
considered as an admission of the crime.
as he testified that Minis sent for him,
evidently for the purpose of completing
arrangements.
The trial resulted in a yerdic. of not
guilty. Il. l.. Mcfarland and A. Hagan
We're attorneys for defendant The
second indictment was then dismissed.
Julius Ruukle was also released from
similar charge.
In the case of J. q. Peterson VS.. T.
NJ. Dryden and Others. Judgment was
rendered against defendant by default.
The case of Thomas Ford VS. Martin
Commit was tried before jury and de-
cided in favor OF the plaintiff. Ford.
The suit was brought TO recover pay
ment for Post Falls town property
bought by Commit from Ford and for
which Commit refused TO pay. setting
up for his reason that Ford had agreed
10 make certain Improvements on ad,
Joining property which would increase
the valne Of his purchase, and after the
FIRST payment was made refused 10
make tie Improvements agreed to.
hence the refusal TO pay. The court,
however, thought otherwise. and ia
structed the jury to bring in verdict
for the plaintiff,