The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-07-23

ilVed at White Bear lake, and previous
TO the assignment of the bank was
vice president and cashier. Nov
Mr.. Lucius and he were good friends
ana Lucius had been accommodated
WI Win money on; that date Charles
Thurston called at the bank and
asked If Lucius had about $4,000 in the
bank. He sent for Lucius and told
him about the talk with Thurston and
ms account: Lucius told witness that
hlm II ne wanted to protect himself
ne had better draw his money. Lucius
S1o 10 THIS ~ and drew the checks for
$l,94O5S. Witness weflt to the tellers
cage and drew Vhe $1,000 from a box
IN when he had. some private funds.
money except to prevent those who
were TO sue him from getting the
money. gave him IA note for $4,000,
GATED 1886, this being done so as to
alIoW Luclus interest on his deposit
from July l to Nov. 9. Mr.. Lucius had
never oemanded the payment of the
note Tor $4,000. AZ Mr.. Doty4 presented
the note after the bank failed and
asked a. me II 1t could not be paid. could
~ ne secured in some way. The tes-
tiIlony or Lucius, to the effect that he
~ iao peen called to the bank on Nov.
-, ana informed by witness that he
would help him out was denied. Mr..
Bickel said he was not in the citv
Wy ~ IL or IL, having left for Barnum
at at z;i5, Nov. 10, and did not return to
0t; raul until week or SO later.
al " - McDonald at this point attempt
gu 20 snow that the witness had no
di isete at the time Of the garnishee
uiSciusure to commit the crime for
Mulcn ne was indicted. Mr.. Zollman
a,g ueu that in an Indictment for per-
10y II was not necessary to prove in
+u,aox, mere was an argument be-
1Ween counsel, and as Mr. ZoIlman
49, 20 cite some authorities on this
morning at 10 O'clock.
-; Tue morning session much Of the
49,, was consumed IN arguments Of
o2 20 on objections to questions ask
eo witnesses by both sides :
~ d. Luclus was again on the wit
witness OH iiiuAnefeiit
M Mr. mcdonald on the cross -examina-
o olon asked him: did you swear to the
IDolipiaint for larceny against MIR
me state objected, and the defense
eApialned that the question was in
tended to show the hostile animus of
the witness. 70 :
Mr.. ZoHman-The. fact that he swore
20 complaint for larceny from the
pahk IS not Inconsistent with this
charge OF perjury. If he had sworn
70 complaint for larceny, from him
sell IL might have made a difference.
were you notiSolicited by the assis-
taht county attoFneysjto swear out a.
BickeI?" =, -, All
MI; Aollman objected, and the court
ruled that question Improper. as well
as the former one. Il. 49,,
Mr. Mcdonald 5saidelhe could prove
such solicitation, and indicated the
n a.
" attorney and the :. great pressure
orought to bear uponohim to secure the
DID you tell ME-. Barnard that before
the garnishmentfrwas, served you had
oraWn your money out of the bank?"
II dld, 1t was on l4he advice of Mr.
BickeL'' 49,
IF you. said so,yeu told an untruth?"
witness was obliged to admit it,
The state called e. F. Heinlein for
merly teller of the Minnesota Savings
bank.
Mr.. Zellman showed him the telIer's
cash DOCK and the entry made Nov.
10, 1896.
This entry showed overcast, 81. 940. SO,
the amount of the iLucius claim
- The state asked him nothing farther
Mr.. McDonald-Was not that a false
entry?
g. Objection made, and sustained, as it
was. not cross examination.
Witness was shown a check and said
1t represented the item of $1,94O, So. This
check was carried in the cash. 1t
came in on Nov; g The. writing, in the
body of the, check was in. the hand of
sthe Witness. Hg HAD drawn It at the.
Peapest Of Mr.: Bickel. Lucius' sigma
.ture was on the. check He had not
Signed it in the pre- sence OF witness.
He had taken the check Back to Mr..
Bickel, The alsh belonging to Mr..
Bickel would not appear on the te1Ier's
book. It was charged off and the bank
had nothing further to do with it,
Charles H. Schade, formerly book
keeper for. the bank looking at book
of accounts said that the date of
closing Of the Lucius account was the
10th. -. 1 T.
Who closed that account?" asked
Mr.. Mcdonald
Objection made and sustained after
spirited argument, on the ground that
the question was not proper cross-ex-
animation.