The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1897-03-05
MRS. DIEMEL AND AUGUST
WENDT IN COURT.
Their Lawyers Fight Hard to Have
the Hearing at Once, But the Court
Grants the Request of the State--
Sheriff Bowen Returns From Mis-
souri, ..Mrs. Diemel Her Parent s
and Wendt Arrested on Another
Warrant.

The preliminary examination Of
Mrs. Diemel and August Wendt on
the charge of grand larceny in the
first degree, was set for ten o'clock
this forenoon, before Judge Shissler.
At that hour, Deputy Sheriff Pettis
brought the two prisoners down from
the jail, and the attorneys on the two
sides lined up for the preliminary
bout.
When the case was called, County
Attorney Hughes asked to have the
hearing postponed until March 9th or
10th. saying that the state was not
prepared to go on at this time. The
case was an intricate one, the sheriff
had been away, and it had taken
longer to get the evidence ready than
had been expected.
Attorney H. L. Schmitt opposed
the request, speaking of the hardship
it was for the defendants to remain in
jail, as they would probably have to
do if the case was adjourned. The
defense had been led to believe that
the case would 60 on today, and was
ready.
Mr.. Hughes said that the state had
told the defense that it was not ready
to COON. 1t wanted time to investi-
gate the case thoroughly.
Mr.. Schmitt replied that the only
object of the state in asking delay
was to gamble on Diemels return.
W. E. Young reinforced his col
league by saying that the state must
have had evidence when it commence
ed the case. 1t was not for the county
attorney to play with individuals or
to have people arrested because some
body wanted it, unless there was suf-
ficient reason. The defendants are in
Jail and have only a few friends and
no acquaintance. The state is not
gambling institution and the county
attorney is not master of ceremonies
at such an institution. The defense
was ready to proceed and had been
ready all the time. The court should
not hold the case to allow the state to
get more evidence.
A. r. Pau was brought to his feet
by this, and read the law that allowed
the court to adjourn hearings from
time to time, not to exceed ten days
at a time, and without the con-
sent of the defense. This eXamina-
tion was merely an investigation as to
whether a crime had been committed.
When a criminal action is to be COM
menced, the state does not wait until
it has all the evidence and is ready
for trial. If it did, the defendants
would have time to leave the state, as
Diemel has done. Arrests are made
on suspicion sometimes, and some
times under such circumstances that
the charge cannot be proven even in
Nthe end. In the present matter there
has been a crime committed, involv-
ing considerably more than is alleged
in the immediate complaint. The
state is trying to get man back from
Missouri, and it lis desirable to have
him here before this hearing takes
place, as his case and this are init
mately involved. But aside from
that, the evidence in this case is not
ready, and the state is not fully pre-
pared to establish the guilt of the de-
PENDANTS. The state is working at it,
and in the course of a few days it will
be ready, whether Diemel returns or
not. The state has been hampered
by the absence of the sheriff.
Mr.. Young, in reply, said that from
Mr.. Pfau's statement he took it that
when this case was tried, it was in
tended to try some other case, also.
The state had had time and freedom
to look for evidence. The prosecution
would be kept up until the debt of
the complaining witness had been
collected, and then the defendants
would be discharged.
This latter statement warmed up
Mr.. Pau, and he declared in an en-
phatic manner that the only debt
sought to be collected 10y this case
was that to the state of Minnesota.
The state demanded not money, but
that the wrong against it's laws be
righted. The defense would find
that the state has the
evidence to hold these parties
and perhaps others. 1t may want to
prove other things than those alleged
in the complaint.
Mr.. Young suggested that if an ad-
journment was had it be until day
after tomorrow.
The court said that the charge
against the defendant was serious
one, and was the most serious that
had come before him except a murder
case Ifthe defendant had asked for
an adjournment, the court would
have felt it to be its duty To grant it,
and it was a poor rule that would