The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-11-11
Why NOT WAGNER?
If An OFFICER GOES TO CALIFOR-
MA TO SEE WILLIAM
ETCNEL.
TWO WARRANTS OUT FOR HIM.
II, THE OTHER OF
JUNE IL.
WO WARRANTS OUT FOR HIM.
WHAT ANDERSON SAYS OF IT.
Claims There Are Two Reasons Why
II Were Useless to Bring Him
Back.

When asked why he did not take
steps to secure requisitiOn papers and
bring William Bickel back from San
Francisco and place him on trial, COun-
ty Attorney Anderson said that there
were good reasons for not putting the
county to that expense in this partic-
ular case. MI Anderson seriously
doubted whether the state could prove
it's case against Bickel. The expense
of bringing him back to st. Paul and
placing him on trial would amount to
at least $1,000, in the estimation of Mr..
Anderson. There was another reason,
Mr.. Anderson added, why it would not
be wise to bring Mr.. Bickel on to testi-
fly in the case of the people against
WilIia4H F. Bickel but this reason the
county attorney declined to disclose.
In connection with the trip that the
county attorney would like to make
to San Francisco, 1t was suggested by
one Of the members Of a recent grand
jury thot things might be much easier
settled by allowing the sheriff to make
the trip and return with Mr.. .Bickel.
This the gentleman said, could be done
by virtue Of a couple of bench war
rants now in the hands of the sheriff
which call for William BicllePs arrest
on a charge of grand larceny in the
first degree. BY this arrangement the
county attorney would be deprived of
the pleasure of a trip to the Pacific
coast, but there would be no need of
taking Mr.. Bickel's deposition and he
would be ready to answer to the two
indictments against him.
The grand jury on May II returned
an indictment against William Bickel
charging him with grand larceny in the
first degree. The Indictment alleges
that, as an officer and trustee of the
Minnesota Savings banks, he appro-
priated to his own use on May 29, 1896,
the sum of $1,000. A bench warrant
was issued and placed in the hands of
the sheriff for Bickel's arrest but it
has not been served.
The grand jury on June IA also re-
turned another Indictment against
William Bickel, charging him with
grand larceny in the first degree. This
Indictment alleges that on Jan. 20,
Bickel, as trustee of the Minnesota
Savings bank, appropriated to his own
use $1,000 of the funds of the bank.
The witnesses before the grand jury
were T. D. Sheehan, E. F. Heinlein
Charles H. Schade and Jacob Hammer
A bench warrant for the arrest Of
Blckel was duly issued and turned over
to the sheriff on June %, and it now
reposes with the first bench warrant In
the sheriff's Office
The following is a list Of the cross-in-
terrogations, prepared by the county
attorney, which are to be propounded
to Mr.. Bickel in San Francisco next
Monday:
1. When and why did you leave St.
Paul?
g. Is the defendant your son?
8. Did you hold any office in the Minnesota
Savings bank other than that of trustee dur
ing the years 1892 to 1897?
4. If in answering interrogatory 8 lin be-
half of the defendanD you state you became
familiar with the affairs of said bank or
its books of account, or the account of the
defendant, or with his said transactions
in the said bank, state fully and in
detail your means or sources of information.
5. If in answer to interrogatory lin behalf
of the defendant you state how any of the
sums specified in the bill of particulars hap
pened to be charged against the defendant
on the books memoranda, or records of
said bank, tell how you obtained your infor-
nation.
g. If, in answer to interrogatory 10 lin be-
half Of the defendanD you state any fact or
facts which you claim to bear upon the right
or authority of the defendant to receive the
sums of money described in said bill of par
ticulars, state fully Jour means or sources of
information.