St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-06-02
SOME TECHNICAL POINTS
or TIE STAsETs9 CASE AaE BEING
ably ARGUED.
THE JURY Is DISMISSED,

1t Will Sit Again on Monday,
When 1t Is Likely the Argu-
ments VIII BE Concluded-Th
Defense Trying Har,I to Knock
Out the lndictInent-The Case
May Never Go to the jury.
There is accessibility the Streeter case
may never go to the jury. Yesterday
afternoon the jury was dismissed until
10 o'clock Monday, and until that time,
it ever, there will be no evidence taken.
The attorneys yesterday put in their
time arguing the matter of the indict-
ment. Attorney Lancaster occupied
most OF the forenoon III concluding
his argument begun yesterday. and the
jury was dismissed until 2 o'clock.
When court convened again IN the aft
ernoon the jury was told to report on
Monday. MIR. Lancaster made an able
argument. and built the fences arc md
it well, maintaining s~trenuously that
in the making of papers IN all lndict-
ment every element of primary guilt
must be stated. Mr.. Streeter asked per-
mission to leave the court room, but AS
slstant County Attorney Peterson OBJ
jected. holding that a defendants place
was in the court room. Judge Russell,
however. remarked that it would make
no material difference whether the de-
PENDANT was present or not. SO long as
the jury was not, and accordingly the
gentleman was excused.
Mr.. Peterson, during the afternoon
session. argued for the papers in the in
dictment. He is said to he the n who
drew up the papers, II he did not pro-
pose the case should be Knocked out
on it.
"It is held by the legislature" he
said. THAT when a man appropriates
property to his own use that he holds In
trust capacity he steals it. The legis-
lature has given the word appropriate
a definite and technical Ac-
| cording to the theory of the defense, i'll
an Indictment for grand larceny 1t
would be necessary to employ the
words say that a person did steal. take
and carry away certain property of an
other without his CONSENT" MIR. Peter
son claimed that the word appropriate
meant the same thing as stealing, and
sOlu THAI llC CLliIiV VI 'SShA As
this state was entirely statutory.
There was no such otfense as enIbez-
Element. but there was larceny"
He added, quoting the words OF Cnlef
Justice COleridge, THAT courts Of law
have now come to the point where they
were beginning to call stealing stealing.
They were not reasoning TO see now
many criminals they could read out Of
the statute. We have reached the point
where we call things by their proper
names.o
Judge Shaw in arguing the point
said: No man should be put to tlial
for an otfense which involves his liberty
or his life without being made acquaint-
the charge against him. That is the
law, settled in principles of jurispru-
| dence in criminal cases since time i'm
memorial-the principles which have
been established by common law. The
defendant asks this court to guarantee
to him his constitutional rights"
The judge took some time to answer
Mr.. Peterson. The points which he
made were that the indictment did not
contain the allegation OF MIR. Streeter'S
fducia1y relation to the Guaranty Loan
company, aud the statement OF how the
property came into his hands, by such
relation. He declared that the law holds
a man innocent, even though an indict.
ment had been brought against him,
until the jury had returned a ver-
dict of guilty against him. That was
the safeguard which the law threw
about a man. 1t was impossible to say
that em.ezzlement had been committed
until these two fundamental principles
had been complied with.
MI. Peterson asked Judge Shaw
where he found in the statutes the re-
quirement for the statement of fidu-
ciary relations. Judge Shaw answered
that any person OF common sense read
ing the statute Oh that question could
see that it was very evident that the
intent of the statute was that this
tiduciary relation should be set forth i'll
the Indictment.