St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-11-04
HAWKS AND EVANS HEARING
DEFENSE PERMITTED TO CALL GRAND
JUR YMEK.
THE COLE CASE DISMISSED.

Effort to Quash the Indictment
Against Hawks and Evans
Testimony as to the Evidence
at the Sessions of the Grand
Jury The Minneapolis Real
Estate Man Free.
The argument OH the motion to quash
the indictments against Hawks and
Evans was continued Yesterday fore
noon by the defense. The county at
torney replied in an argument of about
fifteen minutes, which he prefaced with
the remark that it seemed to him an eff
fort was being made to apply the phys
zeal test of endurance to the court. AT
the opening of court at 2 O'Clock in the
afternoon Judge Kelly decided the
questions raised as to the right to
show what had occurred in the
grand jury room. His honor stated
that the question is an impor-
tant one, and had been ably argued
on both sides. In his view the common
law rule of absolute secrecy remains.
except as to the exceptions made by
statute in cases of perjury and the re-
veallng of names of witnesses upon
whose testimony the indictments were
found. Applying the rules of the COM
mon law as modified, the court an
nounced that he would permit evidence
of the grand jurors as to what charge
was under confederation on a certain
day and what witnesses were examined
relative to certain Indictment, but
would not permit the testimony of the
grand jurors to go further and show
what was testified to by the witnesses.
nor what was said by grand jurors
themselves, or how they voted as to
any charge. Outside witnesses would
not be permitted to testify for the
purpose of impeaching the grand jury
or any matter testified tC by grand
jurors. The court stated that in this
considered, and that they were taken
up OH Oct. II, 16 and II. There were
two cases against Hawks considered.
Two cases of forgery were considered.
There were no indictments found on
the first, second and fourth charges;
but it was on the third charge that the
indictment against Hawks and Evans
jointly for embeZzlement was found.
The attorneys for the defense then
wanted to know if the affidavits of
Evans, Ovitt and Banholzer were filed
by the court, and it was ruled that they
were in evidence. Counsel for the de-
Tense then called D. A. Monfort, who
was a member of the grand jury. and
began series of questions which were
designed, as counsel said, to make
record. Under objection by the county
attorney. however, the court reiterated
his ruling and sustained objections to
questions directed to the point as to
whether other witnesses than those
who were Endorsed on the Indictment
had been before the grand jury during
the investigation as to the Seven Cor
ners bank. Mr.. Monfort stated that
Messrs. BanholZer and Evans, as we'll
as other witnesses, were before the
grand jury, but were not called as wit
nesses in the case on which the
indictment was found. George
Nash and Charles K. Sherood,
members of the grand jury, testified
differently from Mr.. Monfort and said
that other witnesses were before the
grand jury when the specific charge of
larceny was being considered. The
afternoon was taken up in the question
ing, and number of questions asked
which the county attorney objected to
and which he claimed were put for the
purpose of indirectly bringing out what
was done in the grand Jury room, so as
to be used by the defense in the trial Of
the case. NJ. d. Kenyon, the state pub
lie examiner, was also called and asked
as to testifying before the grand jury,
but was not permitted to go into the
matter. At the request of the defense
the further investigation on the motion
to QuaSh the indictment went over un-
til Monday.