St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-02-05
DISCHARGE is ASKED FOR
AS to Defendants Who Have
Not Been Implicated
in the Cases.
STRIKERS ARE AGGRESSIVE.
Making 1t Warm for Brooklyn
Trolley Line Companies
in the Courts.

CHICAGO, Feb. 4.-UneXpectedly TINS
afternoon the counsel for the govern
ment announced it had submitted all OF
its evidence in the conspiracy case be-
fore Judge Grosscup. Saturday the
prosecution issued forty five more
subp9nas for witnesses and the return
of these was expected TO keep the gov
eminent on the stand all OF the week.
When Mr.. Walker announced at 4
O'Clock that the prosecution would rest
its case there was some surprise i'll the
room. The jury was requested to retire
and counsel for the defense asked fer
the dismissal of the defendants. Judge
Thoman for John f. McVean, the
Cleveland, o.. member of the board or
directors, asked that his client be dis
charged: that during the trial his name
was not coupled with any of the others
save as being q fellow director. There
was no proof that he had been in Chica
go during the strike. He had never
been in any of the counselS of the board
of directors during the strike period.
Mr.. Walker, for the government, admit
ted the representation. but called the
attention of the court to the fact that
McVean had voted in tine convention TO
order strike and had acted aS menu
Der of the committees.
hi. barrow asked for the peremptory
discharge of Frank Dreyer, Dennis Lar
kin, James Mcdonald and John Burke,
not one OF whom had been named as
taking part in single overt act. He
asked for the discharge of John j. Han
nahan, against whom, he said, the gov.
eminent had failed 10 prove an overt
act. He then argued for the discharge
of the members of the board of direct
ors. Not single act set forth in the
indictment. he claimed, had been
proved against them. There had been
not the slightest connection made be-
tween them and the other defendants
accused Of overt acts.
The court said he would take the mo-
tons under adviSement until tomorrow,
inStructing the marshal not to bring in
the jury until after ne had disposed of
the motions.
Attorney Geetting, who was refused
the cross examination OF witnesses last
week because Of a rule of the court con
filming the cr0ss-eXamination to but on
counsel for the defense, Was surprised
this afternoon by the Introduction Oe
the two men whom he was denied thf
right to examine and Informed by the
court that he could now cross examine
them. The court, in explanation of his
denial of last week, said he did so in
order to expedite business. lie recog-
niZed that the attorney had been mod
crate in his cross examination. and he
now wished 10 ODlige him. However,
the court did not wish 10 be understood
as declaring that his ruling was wrong
or that the attorney had any conStiIu-
tional right to crOSs-eXamino where
counsel for other defendants, having a
common interest in the matter. had
cross examined the witnesses. Mr..
Geetting, in replying to the court.
thanked him for the privilege afforded.
but did not announce the withdrawal of
his exceptions taken at the time.
During the Afternoon United States
Marshal Arnold identified Defendant
Descendants as the leader of the crowd
that ridiculed him and cursed the in
junction, the courts and the govern
ment. The failure to secure in time all
the witnesses for whom subp@naS were
issued Saturday was the cause of the
sudden closing Of the governments side
Of the trial.