The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-03-19
DAVIS, THE DETROIT CITY MER-
CHANT, ON TRIAL FOR CRIMINAL
LIBEL.
HIS STORY ABOUT STEPHENS
BEING AIRED AT SOME LENGTH BE-
FORE MUNICIPAL JUDGE
ORR.
TESTIMONY ALL In YESTERDAY
The Deputy Game Warden Denies
the Alleged Agreement With
Davis.

t..
Mimi, on the charge of criminal libel,
preferred by Deputy State Game War
den E. 0. Stephens, of the same place,
was begun before Judge Orr in the
municipal court yesterday morning.
Had the case been tried at the home
of the parties to the action there would
undoubtedly been a large attendance,
but as there is little of local interest
concerned, only small number of per-
sons watched the securing Of a jury
and listened to the testimony. No
sensations were developed and nothing
save details was added to the alleged
bribery charges, giving rise to the
action, which have already been pub
lished
w. H. Brill, a reporter, was the first
witness. He told of the visit of Davis
to the office of the paper, and the fur
| ther fact that he wrote the item Wit
ness testified that Davis told the story
substantially as it was published.
Davis specifically said that he would
stand for the statements made as he
was being prosecuted, and he came to
the conclusion that it was time to get
even" He proposed to tell the entire
story of corruption. Witness was sure
that the article, as it appeared mar
rated the charges made by Davis as he
stated them in the interview, and that
Davis authorized the use of his name
as the person making the charges.
AT this point the county attorney Of
fered in evidence a copy of the paper
containing the article and it was OBJ
jected to.
Judge Orr, in overruling the motion,
stated that the defense could take ad-
vantage of the same motion when the
state rests.
E. O. Stephens, the complaining wit
ness, was then put on the stand, there
being no cross examination of Mr.. Brill.
Stephens testified to entering box car
on side track and finding LOO ducks
packed in boxes among cOrdWoOd. The
ducks were later the same day remov-
ed to the warehouse of Davis in De-
! troit. few days later the game was
put in a box car, and witness next
saw the boxes in Fargo, N. D. 1t was
taken from one railroad company to
| another, and was there seized by State
Game Agent Fullerton, and ordered
shipped back to st. Paul. Davis replev-
ined the game at Moorhead from the
game agent. Witness denied all charg-
eS that he demanded money to allow
Davis to ship game out Of the state.
He had not approached Davis, or any
one acting for him, with regard to ship
ping game out of the state. He entered
an absolute denial to all Of the charges
made in the alleged libelous article.
Haven't you been compelled to bring
this action upon the demand of Elk
ecutive Game Agent Fullerton" was
the first question fired at Stephens by
counsel for defendant
Mr.. Zollman objected, and without
deciding the court took a recess.
The question was repeated upon con-
vening of court this afternoon.
mo SIR
Did not Mr. Fullerton tell you that
he would have to dispense with your
services unless you could prove your
innocence of the charger
mo sir"
Did not you sell large number of
ducks?"
mot great number"
well, how many?"
About eighteen ducks, and I don't
know how many cartridges"
And you will swear that you only
sold him eighteen ducks last fall?'
That's all l remember"
And how much were you paid for
the ducks?"
About $175 Dozen
Didn't Mr.. Davis tell you that the
only way he could pay such prices for
game was by selling them in the East
| and didn't you tell him that there was
no one to watch him but you, and that
you would see that it was all right?"
mo, sir"
And you are sure that you were
not paid more for the ducks and part
| ridges than the market price?'
IT don't think so. Ask my brother;
he is here and knows. I want to ex-
plain that l am in the butcher business
| and deal in game during the season."
| G. l. Bostwick, Of Detroit and an en-
! ploye of the defendant, was the first
witness for the defense. He testified
| that Deputy Game Warden Stephens
| examined a car of game belonging to
| Mr.. Davis at Detroit Jan. 49, prelim-
! mary to Selling the contents under the
| law Bostwick stated that he had re-
/ monstrated with Stephens upon his
! proposed course and had told him he
! ought not to modest Davis in his ship
ments as he, Stephens. had received
| money from Davis on other occasions
and undoubtedly would for the case in
hand if he would not interfere with the
/ car of game. To this Bostwick claimed
! Stephens had replied that he was work
| ing for a small salary and must have
| money
! Eric Anderson, also employed by Mr..
| Davis at Detroit, who was in the car
| at the time of the alleged conversation
| between Bostwick and Stephens, was
called to the stand, but he admitted he
! had not heard the remarks of either
party.
In regard to the alleged arrangement
1 between Stephens and Davis for the
| shipment of carload Of venison from
| the White Earth reservation, Gus Mil
Ter, OF Detroit, testified that he had been
in Davis store on Jan. l and had
heard Davis and the game warden talk
ing the matter over. Witness said
| Stephens had asked Davis to go to the
reservation for the venison, which could
be packed in hay and shipped out of
| the state. There was also some talk
of buying hay, but witness stated that
| Davis did not deal in hay, and that
he understood from what he had heard
that the hay was simply for the con-
cealment of the game. Miller swore
that Davis had not agreed to purchase
the venison talked about. In reply TO
a question of the prosecuting attorney
regarding his relations with the de-
PENDANT and Game Warden Stephens
witness said he was friendly to both
but admitted that he had worked for
Davis hauling game, but that he had
either business or otherwise
THE talk which 1 heard" declared
the witness, was that Davis and
Stephens were to buy the venison and
hay and divide the profits. I think
from what 1 heard that Stephens was
as ready to receive a share of the
profits as Davis was to offer them
You are willing to swear, positively,
that the conversation which you over
heard was to the effect to which you
have just testified ?" asked the prose
cutting attorney.