The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-01

not referred to in the Indictment. There
was no proof that any such notes
ever existed. No proof that the de-
PENDANT ever saw or knew of its exist
ence. The order of proof should be
maintained. Let the state start out
with the presumption that the defen-
dant was innocent.
Mr.. Anderson desire to say that
Mr.. Stevens is due in Washington next
Monday, and must leave Wednesday or
Thursday This is why l call up this
matter now in this way.
Mr. Butler[ want to accommodate
Mr.. Stevens in every way, but my eli
ent's liberty is at stake. l want to say
that If the witness testimony is neces-
sary for Mr. Bickel's case, that l will
keep him here for a month, if neces-
sary. He~has no more important busf-
ness on earth than in this court room.
The unWillingness of counsel to state
frankly to the court why this paper was
offered at this time argues to me osten-
sibly that his purpose was a wrong
one. 1t is a covert attack on the char
acter Of the defendant and was so in
tended. The convenience of no man,
neither court nor state, is ever such
that 1t requires a relaxation of the rules
of evidence to remit the introduction
of testimony conceded to be out of
order and immaterial, and which, 1
contend, can never be made material.
The mere reference to this paper at this
time is violation of the rules Of law.
1t has no place here. Why wait for
Mr.. Stevens yesterday? Why not call
the bookkeeper and the seVenty-tWo
witnesses and prove the property ex-
listed and that there was really some
thing to steal?
The Court think the offer Of proof
is out of order at this time.
Mr.. Stevens was asked and testified
as to the general conduct of the banks
business, and there was nothing of in
terest brought out in the cross-eXami-
nation of Mr.. Stevens.
Edward F. Heinlein, the bookkeeper
Of the bank during '95 and '96, testified
that he worked under Mr.. Bickel's con-
troll. The vault was open during the
day, and everybody connected there
with had access to 1t. Mr.. Bickel drew
the checks, and had daily management
Of the banks affairs with Mr.. Stevens,
who spent from fifteen minutes to an
hour daily there.
Mr.. Anderson-What account did Mr..
Bickel have with the bank?
Witness-He had no account on the
books.
Mr.. Anderson-What other business
did he have with the bank with ref
erence to drawing checks?
Mr.. Butler put in a strong objection,
on the ground that the question was
not specific and too general
Mr.. Anderson stated that the de-
PENDANT had drawn the checks, and
that the state was not obliged to show
them.
Mr.. Butler thought that the checks
should be produced, as be-
ing the best evidence of specific crime
The witness was allowed to answer,
and stated that Mr.. Bickel did more
or less business at the bank, but al
ways took care of the checks.
Mr. Anderson introduced a number
of checks drawn by the defendant,
some to cash and others to individu-
ais. The amounts ranged from 81 to
$68, the total being about $1OO. Two
debit slips. with the defendants ini-
also identified by Mr.. Heinlein.
Mr.. Butler objected strenuously to
the county attorney handing slips of
paper to the witness and then asking
him to testify as to the nature of their
contents, without first offering to put
the slips of paper in evidence. In Or
der that the testimony of the witness
be properly admitted, either the slips
must be offered in evidence or else
: L
the purpose of refreshing his memory.
But the state was doing neither of
these things.
Assistant County Attorney Zollman
argued that it was proper to show the
slips to the witness and ask him ques-
tions for the purpose of laying suf-
ficient foundation to warrant the
court in afterwards admitting the
slips in evidence 1t was proposed to
lon OF Of thncn eli INV ho
testimony Of the witness. Such ac-
counts were as admissible as book ac-
counts.
The court reminded the assistant
attorney that the slips were
not yet in evidence. The question
now was-what is a proper foundation
for the admission Of those slips in evil
deEce.
County Attorney Anderson insisted
that Mr.. Butler had no right to cross
examine Mr. Heinlein at this particu-
lar time, regarding the contents of one
of the states exhibits. The court did
not agree with Mr.. Anderson, where
upon the latter declared that if Mr.
Butler were permitted to cross-exam-
inc at the time and concerning the
of the states exhibit, he.
Anderson, would withdraw his offer to
put the exhibit in evidence.
The court-You may withdraw your
offer then.
The half hour before court adjourn
ed yesterday afternoon, Mr.. Butler
consumed in arguing his objection to
the introduction of the testimony con-
corning the alleged debit slips, mark
ed "W. F. B." without first compell-
ing the state to offer the slips in evil
dence.
The trial will be resumed at 10 a. m.
TODAY