The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1897-11-11
The Howard Case.

The case of the State of Minnesota
VS.. John r. Howard scharged with
bribing a juror, is now on trial in
Minneapolis 1t is alleged that How
ard attempted to six" a juror in a
damage case in which the Great North.
ern railroad was defendant. The in
dictment was found upon information
furnished by man named Billings
an attorney in Wright county, who
says he was the person whom Howard
employed to corrupt a juror named
Otto.
The case came to a hearing on Tues
day, and from the Tribune of Wednes-
day the following points are caught:
The case is chiefly interesting from
the fact that Billings charges that
Wendell & Pidgeon, we'll known at
torneys of Wright county, knew of the
effort to bride and acquiesced in it.
This is denied by the DESCENDANT, who
claims that he had no understanding
with Billings to approach any juror.
Mrs. Amelia Osborn, John E. Holm
berg and Frederick Graf were sworn
in the morning, to give evidence as to
an alleged appointment between Bill
lings and the defendant.
These witnesses were produced to
show that w. E. Fraser went for Bill
lings the evening of Dec. 7, 1895, to
take him to meet How0rd at the Bruins
wick hotel. Mrs. Osborn was the only
one who pretended to identify Fraser
as the man.
In the afternoon Ernest Otto, the
Juror in the case, was sworn and tes-
titled that Billings spoke to him about
the case at Buffalo, MINI. Otto de-
MED that he had made any agreement
! with Billings, but insisted that he re-
fused to agree to Billings PROPOSE
| ton to take money to influence his
vote. Otto testified, on cross-exami-
nation, that when Billings first ap-
preached him and before anything had
been said about the case in which
Otto was a juror, he knew that Bill
lings was up to some dirty" work
He said he had known Billings for
years, and that his reputation was so
bad he knew he intended to corrupt
him.
Billings was placed on the stand
and told his story.
He claimed that Howard came to
him and wanted him to do piece of
work at Buffalo, for which he would
pay him. In complying with the re-
quest he went there and made the prop
Osition to Juror. He ADMITTED, upon
cross-examination,t that Howard had
never mentioned the name of Otto to
him, but claimed he knew who Howard
wanted approached.
He said Fraser came !sfter him in a
hack Dec. 7, 1895, and took him to the
Brunswick hotel and int faced hiTnto
Howard; and that there howard made
the proposition that he go to Buffalo
and six" a juror. Billings contra
dicted himself on cross-examination
in several important particulars. 1t
is understood that the defense will
claim that Fraser was not in Minneap-
oils Dec. I, and will bring host of
witnesses to prove that he was in Far
go at that time. The state has evil
IDENTIFY staked it's case on the truthful
ness of Billings statement as to
Fraser's presence in Minneapolis that
night; and when the testimony of the
defense is put in some startling revela-
tions may be expected. It was chiefly
on account of Billings statement that
Fraser was the messenger who took
him to Howard that he was indicted
for perjury by a Hennepin county
grand jury in the spring of 1896.
When court adjourned Tuesday
night Billings was still on the stand.