St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-23
WHO is The DADDY
Miss Jessie Layman Trying to
Provo That Peter Nc
Crostie Is
THE FATHER OF HER CHILD
But Peter Thinks Miss Jessie
Must Be in Doubt, at
Least.
SHE WORKED IN HIS HOUSE
Near Faribault, and Claims
He Made Love to Her on
First Sight.

Peter McCrostie is on trial before
Judge Egan and jury on charge
preferred by Miss Jessie Layman, in
which she alleges that McCrostie is
the father of her child. But if the
defense proves what it has promised
to, the young lady must have more
or less doubt on the question. Miss
Layman is the daughter of Mime
tonka farmer. She preferred city to
country life, and, after working in
bag factory in Minneapolis for a
time, she came to St. Paul and en-
gagged to work as a domestic in the
house of Mr.. McCrostie, who had
just purchased a large farm in Rice
county, near Faribault. This was in
the spring of 1898.
Mr.. McCrostie is a man of family,
having wife and five children, the
eldest grown-up daughter. In her
testimony yesterday, the complain
ing witness testified that McCroStie
grabbed hold of her and lifted her
on his hip the first day she was in
the house. They had been moving
ing down together, he threw his
arm around her and hoisted her as
stated. She did not think it was
just right, but did not reproach him.
Three days later he gave her an
other squeeze in the woodshed, and
that time she reproached him, telling
him that his wife would see him. He
asked her when he could go to her
room, and she told him she was mot
that kind Of a girl" He used to hug
and kiss her every day in the kitchen,
and finally one day, when his wife
was away, he went to Miss Jessie's
room. Later on, when his wife was
away again, he made love to Jessie
in the kitchen, and they had quite
tussle.
In cross-examining her, Attorney
Michael, for the defense, asked a
great many questions regarding Jes-
sizes relations with other men, young
fellows who had been employed on
Mr.. McCrostie's farm, especially one
Gust Degan
County Attorney Butler objected to
this line of cross-eXamination, but
Judge Egan said he would allow a
certain amount of it.
: The witness denied that she ever
had any improper relations with
any other man than the defendant;
denied that she and began had been
engaged to be married, though adj
hitting that they had gone together
great deal about the time of her
: improper relations with McCrosiie.
She admitted that she and began had
gone visiting to some of the latter's
friends,
TAKING SOME BEER ALONG.
and that, after drinking more or
less OF the beverage, they had gone
walking together. She denied that
they walked in the woods, however.
and said Degan's brother and sister
were with them. When asked if it
was not fact that she had not slept
in her own bed for a certain period
while another woman was occupy
ing the same room with her, she
said it was not. Asked if she had
not remained in the barn with two
young men until it was so late one
night that she was locked out and
began had to get up and let her in
through the cellar, she said it was
not Asked if she had not told began
OF her relations with McCrostie. she
said she told him McCrostie was no
man.
Mr.. Michael, when the case was
first called, moved for a dismissal
on the ground that the complaint
alleged that the crime was commit
TED in Rice county and, therefore,
the district court of Ramsey county
had no jurisdiction, but Judge Egan
said he would have to overrule the
motion temporarily. In his opening
statement to the jury regarding the
line Of defense, Mr.. Michael said he
intended to prove what the cues
tons in his cross-examination of the
complaining witness indicated. He
claimed it was a scheme to put the
responsibility upon Mr.. McCrostie
because he has property, whereas
began is irresponsible.