The Saint Paul globe., 1897-05-20
FINE PoIND TO Be DECIDED.
AFTER HERRING ARGUMENTS
JUDGE LEpIsERESERvEs HIS
DECISION UNTIL TODAY.
LARGENY FIsOM MULDK eOR BANKs
Indictment CAarges LaFceny From
MISS Peterson, While Defense
Claims tho Contrary.


Bickel, and the court took a recess for
! ten mintes. Upon thessreopening OF
court, Stan Donnelly, Of counsel for
the defense, moved to dismiss the case
! on the ground OF the total failure OF
the prosecution to prove the allega-
tions of the indictment. In view OF
the importance of the motion, Judge
Lewis announced that he would take
1t under advisement and reserve MS
decision until 10 o'clock this morning.
In support of his motion Mr. Donnely
! contended the state had utterly Ialieu
! to prove the allegations OF the lndlct-
!! ment that William F. Bickei had stolen
money from Hulda Peterson. Ine evi-
! dence of the state showed gthat aHuioa
! Peterson gave the three. money ofders
I to Mr.. Bicke1 as an officer OF the Dahh
and that she looked 10 the bank TOT
her money; that is, even admitting that
| Mr. Bickel received the money. MISS
! Peterson's testimony showed that the
money was delivered to him as vice
| president of the bank. Her pass pooK'
which, counsel contended belonged to
the bank, showed deposits OF money IN
the bank. Furthermore, had not MISS
Peterson sworni to and signed her claim
against the Minnesota Savings BANK
and afterwards assigned the claim
! Mr. Donnelly furher contended that
| the prosecution had failed to prove tnat
Mr.. Bickel had ever received the
! money-the $268. .09-called fer by the
three money orders. True, MISS Peter-
! son had handed hims the money orders,
and the money orders were subsequent
| ly presented at the postof11ce by some
one, and presumably cashed, and eacn
| Of them bore areceipt signed W1lliam
| r. Bickel, v. p" but that was certainly
no proof that Mr.. SBickel ever received
| the money, or that it ever reached the
! bank And even if it did reach the
! bank, but was not credited on the
| books to Miss :Peterson's account, Mr..
! Donnelly insisted that Mr.. B1ckel could
not be convicted of stealing the money,
| merely because some clerk or book
keeper neglected. to enter the deposit on
| the books Of the bank. Miss Peterson's $
| claim was against the bank and not
against Mr.. Bickel, argued the counsel,
| and the attempt to convict him or
stealing Miss Peterson's money with
out showing that he ever received 1T
and failing to show that If he did re-
ceive It, that he received 1T individually
| and not as an officer Of the bank, was
a snap shot, drag net performance that
1 a. court of Justice could not permit.
If Mr.. Bickel were guilty Of any lar
ceny, it was larceny from the Mime
i sofa Savings Bank, and not from
| Hulda Peterson. sts.. 5S @
! In opposition to the motion to dis
miss, County Attorney Anderson main
tanned first2 that the state had offered
| sufficient proof of the receipt by Mr..
Bickel of Miss Peterson's money. She
i had handed him the money orders and
/ he had told her that he would get them
i cashed at the postofice because he was
1 1rrn ThQrR11nOn Peter
son 1ndorsed the orders over. to Mr..
Bicke1.. Mr.. Bickel gave her a receipt
for them, the next day she let Mr..
Bickel take her pass book and within
/ a weeks time the book was returned
to her with an entry in Mr.. BickePs
posit of $26S.09. Furthermore, the
money orders bore Mr. Bickels sigma
lures to the receipt. The letters "V.
P" after Mr. Bickels name signifed
nothing but words of description. 1t
was not as though Mr.. Bickel had
ings Bang, per William F. Bickel, ".
Mr. Anderson insisted that Mr. Bick-
| ell was liable, individually, and acted
as the agent of Miss Peterson In ac-
| cepting her money. If the money was
ever deposited in the bank, why wasn't
| it credited on the books to Miss Peter
| sons account and as it was not so
credited, then Mr.. Bicke1s entry in Miss
| Peterson's pass book was a false entry
according to the books of the bank.
| In reply to Mr.. Anderson, Mr.. Nc
Donald, Of counsel for the defense, re-
marked that anybody would infer from
/ the county attorneys argument that
| the state might indict Mr.. Bickel fer
| stealing a horse and convict him of
| stealing a dog
| This closed the argument, and Judge
| Lewis announced, as already stated,
| that he would reserve his decision un-
! til 10 a. m. today.
| At the opening of court yesterday
| forenoon, the prosecution called M. B.
| Burke to the witness chair. Mr.. Burke
| worked for many years in the Bank
| of Minnesota When the Bank of Min
! nesota closed, Mr.. Burke found employ
| ment for a time with the receivers Of
the Minnesota Savings bank, and he
was called by the state to testify as TO
the character of the books of the saw
| ings bank over which he had pored
| as an expert.
His cross-examinaion indicated the
! defense
! He was not a partisan witness, and
was not ruffled by either side. But he
! was asked If he thought the cash of
Oct. 8, 1896, had been mingled-that is
| the cash of the savings bank and the
| other cash of the open accounts. He
| thought it had been so mingled. His
| attention was especially called to an
item of $152.11, and he proposed to
| trace 1T In answer to questions of coun-
| sci for the defense.
Then it was that the defense for the
| first time reared its head.
| It Is this-that ON Oct. s more cash
! was received than appears in the credit
entries, and that In that cash entry,
is comprehended the money which Miss
| Peterson received frem her brother in
| Sweden.
While 1t did not appear in evidence,
| the claim of the defense is that on Oct.
| 7 Mr. Bickel gave three money orders
| to a. boy and told him to go to the
postofflce and collect them. Mr.. BickeI
| first wrote his receipt on the orders
signing them as Vice president Of the
| bank. putting the letters V. P. after
| his name.
The boy returned with the money
and handed 1t to the paying teller.
! The bank day was nearly done and
| when. as counsel for Mr.. Bickel claims,
| 1t appears in the s2,634.55 cash receipts
| of that day.
That is in brief, ,tsthe story Of the de-
| Tense as 1t will appear to the jury
AS to the tracing Of this mingled
cash entry by the witness Burke, there
was considerable disputation on the
part of counsel, the court inclining to
hold, at the suggestion Of the county
attorney, that on cross-examination
| the witness might be asked only with
| respect to the savings bank items.
Stan Donnelly-Why, let the truth
come on now. What is the county at
| torney afraid Of? This Is but fair and
s,,.x NJ Rioko1 E1o Shoy,1d not