The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-02
HEInLEIN WAS MUTE
WILLING TO TALE, DGT SPENT
THE 1naI IN IDLE RE-
POSE.
PROGRESS OF BICKEL TRIAL.
COUNTY ATTORNEY ISN'T MAKING
ANY HEADWAY AGAINST BUT
LER'S OBJECTIONS.
TIME SPENT IN ARGUMENTS.
Few Facts Yet Presented to the Jury
Although the Prosecution Claims
to Have Plenty.

Lewis court room at various times
yesterday, where the Bickel case is on
trial, and saw Edward Heinlein, the
bookkeeper Of the Minnesota Savings
bank, on the stand, might have in
ferred that Mr.. Heinlein was testify
ing. But Mr.. Heinlein rarely had oc-
casion to open his mouth. He simply
enjoyed the privilege Of choice seat
where to hear Pierce Butler and County
Attorney Anderson argue the formers
objections to every question the latter
prOpounded. Mr. Heinlein might have
answered half a dozen questions put
by the state and perhaps as many more
asked by Mr. Butler The jurors wear
the wearied, listless expression of an
entirely disinterested body Of men.
The court looks serious and so does the
county attorney. Mr. Butler alternates
from grave to gay, while his client,
William F. Bickel, maintains a per-
fectly placid demeanor.
Mr. Heinlein resumed the stand at
the opening Of court in the morning.
He was asked number Of questions
concerning Mr. Bickels account with
the bank, and, to refresh his recollec-
ton, he was shown a number of slips
by Mr.. Anderson, who wanted to prove
therefrom that the defendant owed the
bank. The slips were those used to
mark credits paid to Mr.. Bickel, from
time to time, as he would draw various
Suns for his own use.
What was the condition Of Mr. Bick-
81, Oh hU
these slips?" asked Mr.. Anderson.
Mr. Butler promptly interrosed an
objection, on the ground that the slips
might not be correct, and because they
would not show a complete statement
OF defendants account since his en-
trance into the bank, 1889. The objec-
ton was argued, pro and con, for up
wards of an hour Mr.. Anderson then
changed the form of his question, and
asked witness if he "could' tell by the
slips the condition Of Mr.. Bickel's ac-
count with the bank. He answered in
the affirmative.
Then TELL" directed the peoples
counsel.
Mr.. Butler again objected and the
points were eXhaustiYely argued. Mr..
Butler finally said he doubted the wit
ness competency to testify regarding
the matter and asked permission to
cross examine him on that point. The
court allowed the cross examination,
and under this head Mr.. Butler got in
some admissions. He was stopped by
objections from Mr.. Anderson at eVry
turn. but argued at length. Mr. Butler
offered to show by the slips that great
many credits due Mr.. Bickel were omit
C,1rT1t n
in all to $2,776.S6.
Mr.. Anderson objected to the offer
on the grounds that it was immaterial,
not proper cross-eXamination at that
time and was furthermore part or
the defense The objection was sus-
tanned. Mr.. Butler made several more
offers of the same nature, and on be-
ing overruled by. Judge Lewis, took an
other tack.
81 offer to show that these slips, by
which witness expects to refresh his
memory, are false, that he knows them
to be, and that he also knows that the
bank owed Mr.. Bickel, instead of Mr..
Bickel owing the bank"
This offer was likewise combatted by
Nh Anderson, who seemed surprised to
hear the court declare:
81 suppose we might as we'll let this
all come out now as any time. If there
was an erroneous balance it will come
out sooner or later"
THAT may be all right later" de-
clared the county attorney, vehement
ly, "but Mr.. Heinlein is our witness
now, and he is not on regular cross-eX-
animation"
But the court allowed the witness to
answer a question as to whether he
did not know some Of the credits had
been omitted. He said he did know
that such was a fact.
Now, you know, don't you," con-
tinued Mr.. Butler. that if all the
credits had been placed there the bal
ance would have been the other way?'
Mr.. Anderson strenuously objected to
this sort of croSs-eXamination and
then followed another extended argu-
ment, and SO the proceedings dragged
along for the rest of the day.
When the county attorney attempted
to examine the witness concerning the
contents of certain debit slip, Mr..
Butler insisted that the state could rot
question the witness regarding the con-
tents of the slip, without previously
offering to put the slip in evidence. In
opposition to the states attempt to
show that Mr.. Bickel had drawn GER
tain checks on the Minnesota Savings
bank, Mr.. Butler contended that the
state must show that the defendant
had no right to draw the checks. The
mere drawing of a check was not en-
bezZlement Mr.. Butler insisted that
the state could not shift the burden Of
proof onto the defendant and make
him prove his own innocence
When court adjourned, at p M,
Mr. Butler was still arguing.