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

became of Mr.. Bickels debit slip car
ried in the drawer?
There was an objection, and the
question was now squarely before the
court. The court asked how the teS-
timony was relevant under the in
dictment which failed to set out the
theft of the slip.
Mr.. Anderson stated that, in his
opinion, general allegation was all
that was necessary in an indictment
for embezzlement. That was all the
statutes required. He alleged the TAX
ing of $5,63S.44, which included the
amount of the debit slip
Mr. Butler said that the Indictment
had not followed the statute. 1t de-
scribed money specifically and not
generally. The term cash item Slip
would not advise the defense what
kind of money was referred to.
The court thereupon sustained the
objection, and the item Of SO, 69194 was
not allowed to go in evidence
Mr.. Anderson began the morning
session by introducing IN evidence a
large number Of notes and correspond
ing credit discount slips, alleged to
have been taken by the defendant
after the bank failed
Mr.. Butler objected to the introduce
ton of each and was overruled Touch
ing the Behnke note, Mr.. Butler stat
ed that the note had been returned
to the receivers; that it had been paid,
and that the defendant could not be
trled for taking something which he
had not in his possession He said
that under the Indictment he was au-
thorized to hold the notes. All the
notes were turned over to the receiv-
ers within the scope of defendants
employment. The notes were not stol-
en- property. No one was deprived
OF cent nor scrap of paper Would
the state send the defendant to the
penitentiary for doing what the in
dictment said he had a right to do?
SO far as these notes were concerned,
the defendant was entitled to go free.
with a directed verdict at the hands
OF the court. 1t would not do to mt
a forced construction on the law or
facts to suit this case. Demand for
the return of the notes was necessary
under the law.
Mr.. Anderson said the counsel had
taken upon himself to state what the
facts and the law were. The facts
were that, at Bickel's request. Teller
Helnlefn had made entries on the
books of the bank that these notes
were paid when Bickel knew such to
be false. Bickel carried away the notes
from the vault on Jan. 16, and. after
wards turned them over to Walter
r. Wilmot. When the grand Jury be-
gan to make it hot for Wilmot, Bickel
saw fit to go before the receivers and
produce the notes upon an order to
show cause. BickePs so-called possess
sion was for the use and benefit of
the bank, and not for himself The
crime was committed when he took
the notes, and it made no difference
if he afterwards turned them over
to the receivers.
Mr.. Butler said he would hold the
state to the strict letter of the indict-
ment There was no evidence that
anything was due on the notes or that
they were even genuine. Unless it
was shown that somebody had lost
something the defendant should go
free. No one was hurt
Mr.. Anderson-Was not the bank
hurt when the defendant caused false
ertries to be made on the books and
then carried away the banks papers?
The counsel is away off on the Dues
ton of demand. No demand is neces-
sary in a criminal proceeding of this
kind.
Mr.. Buffers objection to the intro
duction Of the note was overruled.
Among the other notes introduced
was that of the defendants father. Will
liam Bickel, for $1,25O, made to the
Minnesota Savings bank, dated July 81.
1896, payable in ninety days. In the
body of the note, it was stated that
the maker, Mr.. Bickel Sr., had deposit
ed with the bank as collateral security
for its payment. a promissory mote
for 81, OO0-M. D. K, meaning, presum-
ably, M. D. Kenyon. On the back of
the note appears this inscription:
Paid on within note one thousand dol
lars"
In the afternoon the county attor-
ney offered the remaining notes and
corresponding slips in evidence. He
finished at o'clock and then announc-
ed that the state desired to withdraw
Witness Heinlein for the time being,
and call other witnesses, after which
he would recall Heinlein and complete
his direct eXamination-in-chief To
this Mr.. Butler objected. The defense
must be permitted to cross examine
Heinlein before the state proceeded
further. Mr.. Butler also insisted that
the state should be required to finish
Its direct examination before the de-
tense began it's cross-eXamination. Mr.