The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-07-30
DRY, BUT SOOTHING
TESTIMONY IN THE sCHEFFER
TRIAL SEEMS TO INVITE
SLUM8ER.
ONE JUROR FINDS 1T THUS.
EVIDENCE TAKEN so FAR Is
LARGELY OF A TECHNICAL
CHARACTER.
COL. sCHEF'FER ESSoYs IT ALL.
State Finds Considerable Difficulty
in Getting It's Facts before
the Jury.
ONE JUROR FINDS 1T THUS.
Oh. scHEFFHR EssoYs IT ALL.


the Jury.
So dry and uninteresting was much
of the testimony in tie Scnefter trlal
Yesterday that one Of the jurors en-
joyed any number of good maps our
ing the afternoon session. a fellow
Juror nudged him once or twice, put
the effect was not lasting, for in less
than five minutes the sleepy juror
would relapse into another siesta.
1t looks as though the case would
not be disposed of so eXpeditiOusly as
was expected The state is putting up
more of a case than was anticipated,
and, while it is possible that the jury
may never be obliged to retire to make
up a verdict, the majority Of the spec
tators do not look fer a dismissal OF
the case when the state rests.
The attorneys for the defense are
making the state fight every inch OF
ground, and the assistant county at
tCrney keeps even with the other side
in the matter of interposing objections
to testimony. The case Is alive with
technicalities and objections, argued
at length by counsel. The indications
are that it will not be concluded this
week. even if the trial is proceeded
with tomorrow.
Col. .Scheffer seems to enjoy the trial.
He certainly finds it more entertaining
than the court seems to. The jurors
are attentive listeners, with the eX-
Of i1rnr with SOmnO1ent
tendencies.
When court opened at 10 o'clock yes
terday forenoon the assistant county
attorney called the first witness to
the stand. who proved to be w; D.
Barnett, formerly the cashier of the
Allemannia bank. Mr.. Barnett was
shown a draft for $4,000 drawn on
defense objected to any testimony
from the witness regarding the draft
on the ground that no foundation had
been laid. The court sustained the
objection.
Paul Huaser, of the Hauser Malt
ing company, was the states next wit
ness. Mr.. Hauser was asked con-
corning several drafts drawn by Col
Scheffer in advance against his salary
as president of the mailing company
The defense again objected, and the
questions were withdrawn, as the
drafts ran back to a date beyond the
states bill of particulars.
The state then called Charles A. Size
bold, who was clerk and bookkeeper
In the Allemannia bank. A transcript
showing Col Scheffer's account with
the bank was admitted in evidence
without objection. But the defense did
object when the state began questioning
the witness concerning certain entries.
MI. Nelson contended that the state
must show the embezzlement first. and
could not attack the credits in the ac-
count. Here court adjourned for the
noon recess.
In the afternoon Mr.. Siebold was re-
called, and the objection of the defense
being overruled, the witness testified
that the entries made in red ink repre-
scnted overdrafts made by the defen-
dant.
Carl Theirs, formerly the discount
clerk in the Allemannia bank, was the
next witness. When shown two notes
made by the defendant to the A1leman-
MIA bank. one Of which, dated
July 10, 1896, was for 81, 900, the witness
said he had seen them before The
defense here admitted that the 81 900
note was discounted at the Allemannia
bank by order of the discount COM
mittee and the amount credited to Col
Scheffer
On cross examination Mr.. Theirs de-
clared that the discount committee of
the bank authorized him to make these
discounts. He also said that nothing
was ever placed to Col. Scheffer's credit
at his, Scheffer's, request, but only by
the order of the discount committee.
o. other officers CT the bank4o The wit
ness always consulted the,seashier or
Mr.. Kuhl, of the discount committee.
The state then recalled Cashier Bar
nett, and here the proceedings Srew
more interesting as the testimony be-
came more pertinent. After Mr.. Bar
nett had stated that the capital stock
OF the Allemannia bank amounted to
100000 and the permanent surplus fund
to about $4,000, the assistant county
attorney asked this question:
What was Col. Scheffer's Total liabil-
ity to the Allemannia bank on June
10, 1852
The defense objected to the ques-
ton, Whereupon Mr.. Zollman said that
he proposed to show that the total
Inability Of Mr.. Scheffer to the bank
exceeded 10 per cent of it's capital stock
ana its permanent surplus fund and
that he in consequence had no right TO
any overdraft, Notwithstanding the ac-
ton Of the discount committee. Mr..
Nelson commended that the statute cited
by the state had no application TO the
exception contained in section Is of
chapter 145 of the Laws of 1895, which
excerpts discounts of personal draf and
bills of exchange drawn against actual
existing values Mr.. Nelson made the
further point that the action of the
discount committee i'll allowing the
discounts was evidence that Col Schef-
fer had no intent to embezzle any
money. The court, however, overruled
the objection and permitted the wit
ness to answer. The question was
first put in this language: do you
know what Col. Scheffer's total liability
to the bank directly and indirectly was
on June 10, 1896" On motion of the
defense the words directly and indi-
rectly' were stricken out
Referring to the boo ks of accounts Mr.
Barnett said that Scheffer's total Iiabl-
ity to the bank on the date named
Was $71,S77.09, and that that liability
continued until the bank closed
The defense moved to strike out the