Omaha daily bee., 1896-05-09
WITH The JUDGE AND JURY
' Witnesses and Attorneys Have Had Their
Say in the Bolln Case.
CHARGE DEFERRED UNTIL THIS MORN Nc
Evidence Introduced By the Defense
n Great Surprisc-Tcnds Rather
to onvict Than Acduit-Ar-
gumcnts Are Brief.


was concluded yesterday forenoon and the
arguments OF the attorneys followed imme-
dlately. Assistant County Attorney Day
opened in a short, but concise statement to
the jury and was followed by Attorney West
for the defense. The latter proceeded on the
theory that there was 10 shortage-tEe 10000
in the Midland State bank was still there, the
slips In tho cash drawer had been paid, and
Bolln's salary accounted for the remainder
except the proceeds OF the bonds, which he
accredited to errors Of bookkeeping by the
4 experts. He admitted warrants RAD been
drawn for Bolln's salary and were paid, but
there was nothing to show, he stated, that
Bolln received the money on them.
Attorney mcfarland for the defense started
out on the same line as at the former trial,
making a plea for sympathy and abusing
those who had urged the prosecution of Bolln
for his defalcation. He had proceeded on
this line but a little while when stopped by
the court and instructed to confne himself
20 matters in evidence. This appeared to
dlsconcert him, and, deprived Of the oppor-
tunity to complete the speech he had mapped
out. the closing portion of his address was
rather weak. He wound up by a plea for
mercy on the theory that even If Bolln had
. taken city funds the bondsmen would make
up tha loss and no good could come Of sending
the defendant to the penitentiary.
County Attorney Baldrige closed the ar
glmcnt on the case at the evening session
with a clear statement of the transactions
on which the state depended for a conviction.
AT the conclusion of his argument Judge
Baker was about to his charge
TO the jury, when, at the request OF one OF
the jurymcn, he deferred II until morning.
There were several surprises in the prog
ress of the case yesterday morning. The first
one came when the defense drew from w. A.
Paxton. its own witness, the statement that
Bolln hal turned over to him, as trustee for
the hn,1annpn Ou all of the bonds given by
Bolln, all Of his property except his home
stead. The defense did not ask Mr.. Paxton
why this transfer had been made, but in
view of the fact that the opening statement
of the attorneys for the defense showed that
they took the position that there was no
shortage and that every dollar Of city and
school funds had been properly accounted
for, IL occasioned considerable remark about
the court room that they should have shown
that Bolln had transferred his property to
his bondsmen in order to make good any loss
which might fall on them on account Of his
shortage.
introduced in evidence an account current
made by the treasurer to the comptroller
July 10, 1895, which showed on its face that
there was a shortage, as shown by the treas
urer's books, of about $45 900.
The last surprise zane when the defense
announced that 1t would rest its case. 1t
had introduced practically no evidence; no
attempt had been made to show that the
Iunu NcIt plOptIly utCOullttu loI lit z
PENDANT had not been put upon the stand, and
. 1t appeared on the face of 1t as though the
defense had nothing to offer, except what
might be developed in the arguments on the
testimony offered by the state.
CERTIFICATE DID o CUNT.
When court convened yesterday morn
Ing Judge Baker announced his rul-
Ing on the admission Of the two
certificates of Comptroller Olsen, both
of which informed the city council that
he had ayAmippl thu annnnDfc aud zach ~
the treasurer and had found the same cor
rect. The court ruled that these certificates
were not competent in the case at bar for
the reason that the certificate of one officer
that he had checked the accounts of another
did not establish the fact of the correctness
of the accounts of the officer so checked up
Or examined.
w. A. Paxton was the first witness called
by the defense. He was questioned regard
Ing what was said by Bolln and others in
Belln's office the evening Bolln returned from
Hills road house. He said he could not re-
member what anyone else had said, but re-
membered distinctly what he had said to
Bolln. He was not asked regarding what he
had said, but was questioned closely regard
Ing what had been said while Swobe was
T present. The witness explained what had
trapspired in the committee room in the
presence Of the experts and some of the
bondsmen after the report of the experts
had been completed. G. ]. Karbach had
asked Bolln about the item OF ST., 700, and
Bolln had denied that he got the money.
The witness. also testified on direct examina-
lion that Bolln had turned over 10 him. as
trustee for all OF the bondsmen on ali of
his bonds, a large amount of real estate. but
The defense did not follow up this evidence
py asking the witness why the property
had been turned over.
Expert Wettling was called by the defense
ana testified to the fact brought out in his
statement yesterday regarding the item of
1900, repeating the statement made at that
time to the effect that the proceeds from the
sale of these bonds had been deposited in the
National Bank Of and the Mer-
chants National bank.
DEFENSE RESTS ITS CASE.
The defense then called ]. w. Fead to the
stand and he identified an account current
made by him July 10, 1895, showing the bal
ances in the several funds and the amount
Of funds deposited in each of the several
banks as shown by the bank balance books.
The defense then offered in evidence the
cash book showing that the respective grad
Ing districts included in the bond issue had
zach been credited with the proper amounts.
To the surprise of every one in the court
room the defense announced that this COM
pleted its case. Bolln had not been put on
the stand, and the purpose of the defense in
presenting evidence which had already been
presented by the state. covering a point not
In dispute. was not clear. There was no
dispute about the bonds having been sold
and about the proceeds, $77, 700, having been
deposited in city banks. The duplicate entry
OF S77, 700, about which all the dispute was
conferred, was not touched upon by the de-
tense.
In rebuttal the state called Expert Welt
} ling. He testified that the account current
identified by Fead, showed on its face a
shortage in the city funds of 500. 900 and a
shortage in the school fund OF $24, 40. 81.
This statement seemed to rattle the de-
Tense very much and a hasty consultation
was held, after which Wettl!ng was excused
without REORGANIZATION and Fead was re-
called by the defense. He testified that the
shortage in the school fund, as shown by
Wettling. was caused by the fact that, at the
time the report was made out, there was in
The city funds the sum of 1924, noe which
belonged to the school district, but which
had not been transferred to the school fund.
On cros~s-examination Baldrige drew from
Fead the statement that the transfer of the
pa. 1907 from the city funds to the school
\ Irpis would simply be transferring the
shortage in the school fund to the city
funds, making the total shortage in both
school and city funds the same as 1t APP
peared before, except that 1t would appear
In the city funds instead OF in both the city