The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-06-10

! gentleman >tOOk a shot at the prosecut-
| ing attorney for trying to prevent the
! witness from having the advice of ar,
| attorney. settled the matter by saying
| that the examination had gone far
enough to show the hopelessness of
/ getting any evidence from the witness
| and he was excused.
! Alfred s. Kittson was the next wit
ness called by County Attorney Ander-
son, and while the witness was being
sworn and taking his seat in the box.
j. j. McCafferty took a seat at the
attorneys table. Mr.. Kittson gave his
name and said he knew the defend
ant. The next question as to whether
! he was up to 1897 an officer of the bank
! brought Attorney McCafferty to his
feet in the interests of his client Mr..
! McCafferty made the same point as
did the attorney for Bickel. and as
/ the witness refused to answer on the
F.; ground that he might incriminate him.
! self the court sustained the objection.
Mr.. Kittson was shown the minute
record book and asked as to whose
! handwriting that portion of the book
! between pages Is to 81 were in The
| court ruled the witness must answer
| the question, as 1t simply went to his
| knowledge. Mr.. Kittson however, said
| he could not swear to whose writing
| it was
| County Attorney Anderson, with
some warmth, said 1T was
GETTING TO BE A FARCE.
The witnesses were all officers of the
bank, and it simply meant that none
OF the bank cases could be tried on ac-
count of the underlings, on being called
to the witness stand would refuse to
answer, giving as an excuse that they
feared to incriminate themselves.
Judge Lewis suggested that the county
attorney was conducting the case for
! the state. Mr.. Kittson was directed by
the county attorney to examine the
book carefully and say if he ever saw
it before
| Mr.. McCafferty objected for the rea-
son that the knowledge of the con-
tents of the book might be used at
| some future time to incriminate the
| witness. Mr.. Kittson however, re-
piled that he saw the book before and
was excused from the stand.
Edward T. Heinlein was the next
witness. and although his finish was
about the same as the preceding ones,
| he did give some evidence. He ad-
mitted that he lived in ST. Paul, was
| thirty years Of age, and had been en-
/ gagged in the banking business as teller
| at the Minnesota Savings bank He
knew the defendant Stevens for about
| two years. When asked as to the DO
| sition in the bank occupied by Mr.
i Stevens, Mr. Butler objected on the
ground that the witness did not know
Mr.. Butler commended that it would
be just as well to call the janitor of
the bank and ask him if he knew who
the officers were. The law, Mr. Butler
said, pointed out way to get the best
evidence on this spoint and the proper
way was not to call persons and ask
| for conclusions but to go to the rec
ords. The burden was not on the de-
n ln -
the evidence, but he did not propose
! that his client should go to the penl-
| tertiary because the attorney for the
state did not present the evidence in
the proper form.
| The county attorney asked witness if
he knew what position defendant held
| in the bank in 1895. He answered that
he knew, and the next question was
what was the position. Mr.. Butler
asked permission to cross-examine the
| witness as to his knowledge on this
point. Continuing, Mr.. Butler said the
| state had so far introduced evidence
| showing that the bank was organized
in 1867, and the law provided that the
| trustees must be elected and give
and file a bond with the register of
| deeds and state auditor before COM
mencing the duties of their office. The
law also provided that majority of
the votes of the trustees was neces-
Sary to elect officers and fill vacancies
In the face of this
IT WAS AWFUL,
Mr.. Butler said, to allow the states
attorney to summon witness to testify
to something Or anything, and it could
not be permitted to allow the witness
to draw conclusions and testify as TO
what he thought he knew. He sub
mitted to the doubt that the witness
was incapable of testifying as to the
position occupied by the defendant in
the bank.
Judge Lewis sustained the objection
and the county attorney questioned the
witnesses to his duties in the bank.
Mr.. Heinlein testified that he paid and
received money. Shown the book con-
tanning the records Of the meetings
of the board Of trustees witness said
he had seen it in the bank. 1t was
kept with the other books. The county
attorney asked if toward the last Of
1896 or the first part of January 1897, he
had been elected a trustee of the Min
nesota Savings bank.
Mr. Butler still objected unless the
question was set so as to bring the
time between July 8, 1896, and Jan. 2,
1897. as it was between these dates
/ that the Indictment charged the de-
PENDANT with the embezZlement of the
money. The court allowed the ques-
ton and Mr.. Butler took an exception
to the ruling. Witness said he had
been elected a trustee at a meeting
held Jan. Is, 1897. He had been present
at the meeting at which he was elect
ed. He was shown minute record book
of the bank and told by the county
attorney to refresh his memory by
looking on page IS, and after looking
say whether it was on Jan. 16 that the
meeting was held
Mr.. Butler objected to the question
and to the witness looking at the book
to refresh his recollection. The bill
of particulars, Mr.. Butler said, did not
correspond with the Indictment, and
the indictment alleged that the en-
beZZlement was between July g. 1896
and Jan. 2, 1897. The question was in
competent as would not be proof that
Mr.. Stevens was an officer of the bank
on Jan. 2, by proving that he was an
officer a year before or on jan 16.
County Attorney Anderson thought
it was competent to prove that wit
ness was not the only trustee on Jan.
16, 1897, and that Mr.. Stevens had been
trustee in previous years.
The court took a recess for five
minutes.
ANOTHER WITNESS TRIED.
When court reconvened Jacob Ham
mer was called to the stand He testi-
fed that he had been connected with
the Minnesota Savings bank from Sept
1889, to March l. 1895 During that
time he had been teller, assistant
cashier and cashier, and for short
time had been one of the trustees of
the bank. He had attended meetings
of the board of trustees and identified
the record book which was shown him
by the county attorney. He was secre-
tary of the board of trustees and kept
tba minuiteS Questioned as TO the other