St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-09-13

but Mr.. Johns objected, and rather
upset this part of the examination.
Detective McGuiggan was recalled.
and said that wBeE Howard was told
what he was arrested for, he asserted
that he could prove ali ali6i.
At this point the state rested, and Mr..
Johns asked that the motion to dismiss
be passed for the time, as MIR. Erwin de-
sired to make the argument. A tire
some piece of wrangling enSued, re-
SulUing in the hearing being adjourned
until 2 o'clock.
THE LAWYERS 0RAIE.
On the recOnyening of court Mr.. Err
win was not present, and Mr.. johns
moved for the discharge of Howard
on the ground that there had been no
evidence offered connecting the pris-
Oner with the theft of the $1,000. Coun-
Sci heid that in the testimony of all
the witnesses there was not scintilla
of evidence showing that Howard was
anywhere in or near the bank prem Uses
Oh the day of the robbery. Because he
had been seen with Fleury in Minneap-
oils ana ST. Paul was no reason why
Howard should he judged guilty of the
crime charged.
In the course of his argument Mr..
Johns administered red-hot roast to
Detectives Lawrence and Hoy. of Min
neapOlis, scathingly abiding to them as
1.-TWO legaliZed scoundrelS." who had
committed an outrage before which all
reported Russian OutrageS paled into
inslgnficance. ''lf it had been perpe-
trated upon your honor or any member
!! of the bar nothing but their life blood
could wipe it out" said counsel, with
faniiI,u In rt,aAn of h.a
circumstances showing that Howard
was acquainted with and had been seen
in the company of the other accused
men, arguing that the testimony re-
ferreu To was of no consequence.
Reviewing the evidence given by
Chief of Detectives McGiun, Mr.. Johns
asserted it would never be admitted in
, a Trial court; and on that evidence
alone, he held, could the judicial mind
act in deciding the case. Alleged ad-
missions, made under duress. counsel
characterized as entirely worthless and
! unworthy of consideration. Howard S
movements on the day of the robbery
| were analysed to show he did not and
could not have participated in it.
County Attorney Butler, in his brief
| summing up of The facts, reminded the
! court that it was not necessary that
, Howard should have been in or near the
| bank at the time Of the theft in order to
| become guilty equally with the thief.
If by advice or counsel he aided the
thieves, then he becomes as guilty as
| they. The prosecutor admitted The cyl
| dence was largely circanIStantial, and
| then went on to minutely detail the
! facts developed by the evidence. He
, did not overlook any point, and made
every known movement of the men, and
| some unknown, part Of 4 long headed
plan to rob and tilen get away.
Judge Iwohy said That the case diff
fered from that OF Fleury, because there
was no direct evidence connecting How
ara with the theft. Still he thought
there was sufficient ground for holding
the prisoner to the grand jury, and he
would SO order.
After long consultation in side
room the county attorney came out and
talked with MI. JOnDs. They agreed
nicely, and in few moments young and
/ debonndire BtnMilier came forth under
the watchful eye of Officer j. 5. Van
diver. He got Judge Twohy'S ear and
| waived examination.
Bail has not yet been fixed in any
| case. j. j. Meiggs will get a show fol-
liberty or the grand jury at 10 this
morning.