St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-11-18

money. had said it was
DEPOSITED IN ANOTHER BANK,
and that he would say nothing about
the matter until he had arrived in st.
ST. Paul and could see Howard. When
this talk was going on he was in Pink
erton'S charge and under arrest. Be-
fore and up to his arrest Fleury had
evidently been drinking heavily, and
felt badly broke up.
II do take pride in my business"
said PinkertUn. 1.-The detective agency
is opartnership-nota corporation.
IL is matter of hire-of buSiness-with
us. We are on very friendly terms with
the police authorities throughout the
country. Ours is only private bureau,
and is employed by attorneys and others
i'll getting evidence for defense as well
aS ipr rOsecution. But it is not part Of
tie coitStaUuiary system of the coun-
try"
AT this point amost
DRAMATIC SCENE
occurred-one which ecllpsed all pre-
viouS scenes in this now admittedly re-
marEabIe case. Witness Pinkerton was
asked as 10 certain admissions made by
the prisoner. embracing in short the
methods and processes by which the
expert detective had sought to ravel the
tangled web of the bank robbery on
that nights journey from Chicago, when
objection was made to what was COLI
sidered witness differences and insinu-
ations, and defendants counsel rose TO
support his motion TO strike out. AS
counsel proceeded the interest of the
audience became more intensified, and
the ringing tones of the speaker echoed
and re-echoed throughout the chamber.
The climax was reached when counsel
uttered the following:
ut is the first time a court Of justice
has been known TO allow professional
detective to usurp the duties of jury
in"
''What do you mean, sir?'' demanded
Judge Kelly.
A slight pause ensued, prudence and
discretion ruled the hour, and in a
twinkling the strain was lifted and good
feeling once more resumed its sway.
The witness again took the stand, and
was confronted by the following query:
Have you not become S? expert in
the matter of the detection OF crime by
inference that it is one of your greatest
aids in your business?
This led to an objection by the state,
and the inevitable exception.
Witness denied that he had ever in
troductd Chief Garvin to defendant as a
Mason, OF that he had ever told defend
ant that he knew and had influence with
the governor of Minnesota. Witness
admitted that he had arrested defendant
without warrants, and that be knew
the arrest was illegally made at the
time. He also said it was with his
knowledge that defendants trunks had
been seized ana searched i'll Chicago and
the contents removed. He admitted
giving his prisoner on the night of his
journey to this city
DRINKS FROM TIME TO TIME
as he thought he needed them. He
closed with the statement that defend
ant was at no time while in his custody
under the influence Of liquor. After
identifying some photographs he was
discharged, having been under fire
something more than an hour. He
made very favorable Impression, both
in person and in language, and, whether
derived from nOtural gifts or from long
training and experience. he can certain
~ be set down as a good witness.
Felix Bayer was the next witness
sworn. A letter or memorandum was
shown him, and he was about to inentifY
it when objection was made, and met
the usual fate-eXception noted. Wit
ness was excused until Saturday morn
ing.
A Mrs. Mooney was called as the next
witness but was not in court.
Bertha Pitman, waitress at the
Portland restaurant in this city, was
sworn, and testified to Fleury's dining
at the cafe; saw him about week be-
fore the bank robbery; ne came there
with three others.
The defense objected to this line OF
testimony as wholly failing to prove
conspiracy by any act subsequent to the
commission of the crime. A long dis
cussion ensued, 1.-The final question be-
ing: "Who came there and dined with
the defendant before the day of the
crime?"
JURY EXCUSED FOR THE DAY.
At 3:35 p. m. Judge Kelly excused the
Jury until this morning at 10.
At 4:10 o'clock counsel for defendant
commenced his argument upon the adj
mission of any evidence Of acts, declara.
tions or otherwise, of any of the indicted
parties subsequent to the commission of
the offenSe. for the purpose of proving
the conspiracy charged by the state. He
said, in effect:
The state relies solely upon acts and
declarations of the alleged conspirators
subsequent to the commission of the
crime. He insisted that the prisoner
was indicted here simply for grand
larceny, which was not a continuing
act, but was complete at the time of its
commission. Even the most solemn
admission after the commission of the
act would not be sufficient, and to this
effect he quoted 4S California, page
| 1872.
Prosecuting Attorney Butler replied
to the effect that slight evidence only
was necessary to establish prima facle
| case, and cited a Pennsylvania case.
Erwin, in reply, raised laugh, when
he said the authority was bad. and
| that it would be hardship upon the
citizens of other states to impose upon
them the rules. expositions and con.
structions of the law which the courts
of Pennsylvania had imposed upon the
| citizens of that state.
MIR. Butler again made an argument,
and outlined the evidence by which he
expected to prove the conspiracy.
The prosecuting attorneys remarks
led to rejoinder from defending
| counsel, who insisted that con
| spiracy was charged in the indict
ment and could only be proved
by competent evidence. He said thai
this doctrine of conspiracy was an i'll
vention of the crown OF England tt
crush out ireland and entrap O'Connel
and other defendants of the cause Of
| that country. He insisted that the state
could not prove the identity of the
banks property. and that means o.
identifying the same had been lost upor
its deportation.
The discussion continued until 5:25 p
M, when Judge Kelly took the matter
| under Amusement and adjourned court