The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-03
STEVENS ON AGAIH
COUNTY ATTORNEY ANDERSON
GETS SOME TESTIMONY FROM
THE CONGRESSMAN.
is MAKING SOME HEADWAY,
ALTHOUGH PIERCE BUTLER CON-
TINUES TO KEEP UP HIS FIRE
OF OBJECTIONS.
FIGHTING OVER THE BANK SLIPS.
Foundation Being Laid for Some OF
the Testimony 1t Is Expected
to Offer Later.

IN the Blckel trial yesterday, Inan InOSS
OF any previous session, and the county
attorney made some Roadway despite
MIR. Buffers objections. In the first
place Judge Lewis took occasion to cri-
ticise counsel for the manner in which
they argued objections. County Attor-
ney Anderson happened to be address
ing the court at the time. Counsel were
arguing objections and each had init
mated that the rulings of the court
were not entirely satisfactory accord
ing, as the ruling was in favor of one
side or the other. At last, Judge Lewis
remarked:
Il want to say right here, that I will
not permit any further insinuations
against the court, by either COUNSEL
Another interesting episode occurred
soon after court opened in the fore
noon. County Attorney Anderson in
formed the court that Congressman
Stevens was DESTROYS of leaving for
Washington, and proposed to go. He
was ready to accommodate him and
go on with the evidence where he left
off a day or two ago. Mr., Butler
stated that he wished to accommodate
the congressman, but at the same time
desired to protect the rights of his
client. He would not insist strictly on
the order of proof, but would not per-
nit the introduction of immaterial tes-
timony.
Judge Lewis said that the counsel
could do as they pleased-he would not
be responsible for Mr.. Stevens alb
serce. Mr.. Stevens would have to take
the consequence Of disobeyin9 any Or
der of court.
Mr. Butler-But there are no conse-
Quences.
The matter of Mr.. Stevens testi-
nony was then passed until p. m.
Mr.. Heinlein, the paying and receiv-
ing teller, then resumed the witness
stand. He was asked if, after looking
at slip, exhibit Is, he could testify that
exhibit 6 was paid by the bank. The
latter exhibit is a check Of the de-
PENDANT drawn in favor of Eli S.
Warner for $68. The witness said the
check was so paid.
Mr.. Butler asked permission to cross
examine the witness as to his means Of
knowledge Mr.. Heinlein admitted that
he had no recollection of payment be-
yond what was shown by the papers.
There was no date on the slip and the
amount, $6S, might have been taken
from another slip or might have been
made up from a number of other items.
Mr. Butler-Can you now tell from
an examination Of the check IN con-
nection with the slip whether or not
the check was ever paid?
Mr.. Anderson put in a strenuous OBJ
lection on the ground that Mr. Butler
had exhausted his right to cross-eX-
anime the witness except on the regu-
Lar cross examination.
Mr.. Butler-HoW do you know the
check was ever in the bank?
Witness-If it had not been | don
see how | could have made up the list.
Witness admitted that for aught he
knew the slip may have been made in
July and not in November. He could
not tell that the check was ever paid.
Mr.. Anderson renewed his question
as to the payment Of the check by the
bank, but the court sustained the OBJ
lection by the defense, on the ground
that the witness had not shown HIM
self competent to answer.
Mr. Anderson-What is your best be-
lief that the check was paid by the
Minnesota Savings bank?
Witness-Well, it is, Of course, ac-
cording to my memorandum.
Mr.. Anderson dropped the matter, and took
up exhibit II, a debit slip for $25, marked
"W. F. b. He asked the witness if he knew
the money represented by the slip had been
paid to Mr.. Bickel on the date specified.
Mr. Butler asked permission to croSs-eXam-
inc the witness on his means of knowledge.
The court remarked that he thought the
ends of justice would be best subserved II
the defense would wait until its time came
for cross examination, and not be breaking
in at intervals.
Mr. Butler grew serious and launched into
a long speech on the means that were being
taken to send his client to the penitentiary
for ten years. He contended that the ques-
ton of payment was the ultimate fact in
the case, and could not be proved as the
state was endeavoring to prove it.
Twill you permit us to defend in that way?'
he asked. Il am willing to stand on this rec
ord if the state and the court is.
The court allowed the defense to cross-ex~
anime the witness.
Mr.. Butler-How do you know the money
was paid?
Mr.. Anderson was on his feet Directing,
and wanted to know how long the court was
going to permit this line of inquiry and in
reference with the states case.
Judge Lewis-The court will protect the
rights of both sides, and insinuations against
the court will not DE permitted by either
counsel
The upshot of the matter was that the slip
was introduced in evidence. Mr.. Anderson
then succeeded in introducing in evidence
number of checks and slips OF the defend
ant for various amounts. which the witness
said were paid to Bickel Jr. by the bank.
On cross examination by Mr.. Butler, witness
stated that he had no personal recollection
about any of the items, but said that he knew
of payment from scrutiny OF the instruments.
if the money was not paid to Charley Sch3de,
or Mr.. Sullivan, for Mr.. Bickel Objection
was made and sustained. Mr.. Butler also
asked if it was not fact that the money
was paid out of Mr. Bickel's own funds.
Again the objection was sustained. The slip
in question was dated Nov. II. MIR. Butler
asked the witness II he did not know that
the defendant was off on hunting expedition
with Capt Arson from Nov. 10 to Nov. 20,
and that the money could not have been paid
to Bickel The objection was sustained Mr..
Butler then made several offers of proof, but
all were ruled out and the exhibit was re-
ceived.
At the opening of the afternoon session, the
question of allowing the state to call Mr.
Stevens was taken up. The county attorney
suggested that the testimony of Mr.. Stevens,
regarding certain matters, be taken only be-
fore the judge, the attorneys and the court
stenographer, and afterward read to the jury
at the proper stage of the proceedings. Judge
Lewis thought that such a course was open
TO objection as that would amount to taking
nothing but depos tion which the state had
no right to do. Judge Lewis added that he
was inclined to permit the state to call Mr.
Stevens out OF order at this time. Mr..
Stevens thereupon took the stand. But nearly
two hours elapsed before he had an oppor-
tunfty to say a word.
Prior to the asking of a single question
County Attorney Anderson, Mr.. Butler and
his associate, Mr.. Conlin, consulted privately
with the court as to the admissibility Of
certain testimony the state proposed to elicit
from Mr.. Stevens. The county attorney sub
mitted a statement of the acts which he
promised to prove that the defendant had
committed in which event the evidence he
desired from Mr.. Stevens would be admis-
sible.
Then followed an argument as to the ad-
missiblity Of Mr.. Stevens testimony regard
ing the promissory notes set forth in the
indictment. Mr.. Butler contended that as to
the promissory notes, alleged to have been
stolen, the indictment should allege that they
were valid notes, and also state the amount
due thereon. The Indictment against Mr..
Bickel did not make such allegations. The
notes had no value and could not have, I'M
less there was something due thereupon or
Snmethlnp remaining unSatisfied The in