The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-08

| Butler didn't want to conduct the cross
examination in a piece-meal fashion.
The court ruled that the defense
would be allowed to croSs-eXamine Mr..
Heinlein before the state could go on.
Finally, against the objection of Mr..
Butler, who repeated that he Gid not
want to crosS-examine Heinlein until
the state had finished it's direct exami-
nation, the court allowed the state to
withdraw the witness, with the promise
that it would recall him and complete
the direct examination.
The state then called Fred N Dick
son, one of the receivers of the Mime
sofa Savings bank. The county attor-
ney showed Mr.. Dickinson states eX-
bibits 10S to 124 inclusive, being the
notes set forth in the Indictment, and
asked him if he had had any conversa-
ton with William F. Bickel relative to
those notes. Mr.. Dickson said he had
had two conversations with Mr.. Bickel
last spring, with reference to those
notes.
Mr.. Butler objected to- the witness
testifying as to.the' nature of the con-
versations, but the court overruled the
objection.
Mr. Dickson testified that Mr.. Bickel
told him that he could demonstrate
that he, Bickel, had not stolen the
notes. Mr.. Bickel explained that the
notes had been taken and sold for cash
to keep the bank open during the latter
days. Mr.. Bickel also said the bank
owed him for money he had advanced
to it. Mr.. Sheehan and I called his at
tention to the fact that the notes were
taken out on Jan. 16,-only two days
before the bank closed. Mr.. Bickel had
also said that he had given the notes
to friends who advanced money.
Some time after that. Mr.. Dickson
had another nOnUprSa tiOn with Mr.
Bickel, in his, Dickson's office which
ended in Mr.. Sheehan's office. Upon
that occasion, Mr.. Bickel wanted to
know what the receivers meant by
summoning him and other officers and
directors of the bank before the court.
Mr.. Dickson told Mr.. Bickel that Mr..
Sheehan and himself thought that these
notes had been taken out, and spurious
cash items substituted. Mr.. Bickel, the
witness said, again gave the same ex-
PLANTATION as before Some time after
that Mr.. Dickson was in Mr.. Sheehan's
office, while Mr. Bickel was there.
Walter Wilmot came in with the notes
What did Wilmot say in the presence
of yourself and Mr. Bickel?"
HE said he didn't know how he was
going to square himself with the grand
jury for having the notes in his posses
Sion."
Mr.. Butler moved to strike the last
answer out, but the court denied the
motion.
On the cross-examination. Mr.. Dick
son was shown the indictment and
asked If all the notes mentioned there
in came into his possession as receiv-
err Mr. Dickson answered that they
had, and the receivers had retained
possession of them since last May, .ex-
cept those which have been paid.
you're not here voluntarily are you,
Mr.. Dickson?"
mo sir. I was subpoenaed."
T. D. Sheehan, the other receiver
for the Minnesota Savings bank, was
then called to the stand. Mr.. Sheehan
testified as to the conversation had
in his office with Mr.. Bickel and Mr..
Dickson regarding the notes. MI.
Bickel was asked how 1T happened
that the notes were marked paid on
Jan. 16, 1897. Mr.. Biekel said that
during the last five or six weeks the
bank had been hard pressed, and that
he went out and borrowed money to
help the bank out, and that after
wards the notes were given to those
who had advanced the money. Mr..
Bickel also said that he had advanced
money to the bank to help the bank
along, with the understanding that it
was to be repaid on demand. Mr..
Bickel also said to the witness and
certain money on account of salary.
Mr. Bickel designated to the receivers
three items of GS1,0 00 each as being
moneys he had advanced to the bank.
Mr. Bickel claimed at the time, as an
excuse for taking the notes, that 1t
was to pay him for money he had
refunded to the bank.
Mr.. Sheehan enumerated the notes
that were returned by Walter Wilmot,
all of which are mentioned in the in
dictment.
The county attorney sought to elicit
from the witness all; that he and Mr..
Dickson had said to. Mr.. Bickel. To
this Mr.. Butler objected, on the ground
that it was not material what the
witness or Mr. Dickson said to- the
defendant The objection was over
ruled, and Mr. Sheehan proceeded.
He said that Mr.. Bickel stated that
these notes were taken in payment of
the $500 which was charged to eX-
pense on Jan 8, 1897 He said he was
entitled to that money, as he had re-
funded or advanced money to the bank
which was credited to the expense
account Bickel referred to an item of
$1,000 which he said was money adj
vanced by him to the bank. The re-
ceivers, Sheehan and Dickson, contend
ed and told Bickel that he was not
entitled to that $1,000.
Mr.. Sheehan could not recall any
further conversation with MI Rickel.