The Saint Paul globe., 1897-05-21
COURT HOLDS THAT THE MOTION
FOR DISMISSAL WAS WELL
MADE.
THE YOUNG MAN FURNISHES BAIL.
Considers the Peterson Proposition
Bit of Persecution on County
Attorney AndersOn's Part.

the defense was that the state had not
proved the allegation Of the indict-
ment charging Mr.. Bickel with steal
ing the money from Hulda Peterson.
If the money. was in anybodys pos
session it was in the Minnesota Sav-
iEgs bank. sl atg
The court practically agreed with
this view holding that Hulda Peter
son is the creditor of the Minnesota
Savings bank, and that if MI. Bickel
appropriated the money, as charged,
it was the money of the Minnesota
Savings bank. The following is the
opinion of Judge Lewis as delivered
from the bench:
The motion to dismiss this was sub
mitted to the court last evening. The prin-
cipal question raised on this motion is the
question of the ownership of the funds which
the Indictment charges the defendant, w. F.
Bickel, converted to his own use from Hulda
Peterson, the owner.
If w. F. Bickel converted this money TO his
own use, the question is, did he convert it
from Hulda Peterson; was 1t a larceny from
Hulda Peterson or was the larceny from the
Minnesota Savings bank?
The indictment accuses him with having
embeZzled, converted and appropriated to his
own use, on Oct. 7, 1896, money in the sum
of $26S.09 belonging to Hulda Peterson, and
the QeIenQdul is DeluS IT1eu IOT CulS OueHS6,
and it is clear that if the evidence shows that
this money belonged to the Minnesota Savings
bank at the time he converted it, then the
larceny was from the Minnesota Savings bank
instead of from Hulda Peterson, and defend
ant cannot be tried for that offense under the
Indictment in this case.
The evidence bearing upon the ownership
of this money shows that since July, 1896,
Hulda Peterson had an account with the Min
nesota Savings bank and held a pass-book
given her by said bank showing credit to her
account of $40. That on the 7th day of Octo-
Der, Hulda Peterson took three money orders,
aggregating $26S09 to w. F. Bickel In the
Minnesota Savings bank; that she then knew
that he was an officer of said bank; that W. F.
Bickel, the defendant, took the orders and
signed his name, and Hulda Peterson signed
her name the back, and that she endorsed
these orders to W. F. Bickel at that time;
that the defendant Bickel told her he would
draw the money out for her because she
not known at the postofice. That she
at that time had account with the Min
nesota Savings bank, but did not have her
pass-book with her on that day. That Bickel
gave her a receipt for the money orders at
this time; that the next day Hulda Peterson
gave her pass-book to Mrs. Bickel, and about
week later Mr.. Bickel returned the pass
book to her, in which she was credited with
having deposited $26S.09 in the Minnesota Saw
ings bank under date of Oct. Z, 1896, and
that she then surrendered to Mr.. Bickel the
this money on Oct. Z; Her pass-book then
showed, on Oct. I, 1896, there total
credit to her account in the Minnesota Sav-
ings bank of $288.09.
1t appears that the money orders were paid
Oct 7, 1896, and that w. F. Bickel vice
president, signed the receipt on the money
orders. 1t further appears that Hulda Peter
son on Nov 20, 1885, more than month
afterwards, took her pass-book to the bank
and went to the paying teller of the bank
and drew out $50, which was then entered
against her account in her presence in the
pass-book. 1t further appears that two weeks
later on Dec. 8, Hulda Peterson again took
her pass-book to the bank and drew out S25,
which was entered in her presence against her
account in the pass-book. 1t also appears
that two weeks later, and on or about Dec. 22,
she again took her pass book to the bank and
was paid $15 by w. F. Bickel, the defendant,
and this amount was entered in her presence
against her account in her pass-book.
1t appears that some time after this last
date the Minnesota Savings bank failed, and
that in March, 1887, Hulda Peterson made and
verified proof of her claim against the Min
nesota Savings bank for $26S:09, with in
terest, and that subsequently, for valuable
consideration, she assigned this claim against
the Minnesota Savings bank to a third party.
1t also appears that the books of account
of the Minnesota Savings bank do not show
any credit for the $26S.09 in the account of
Hulda Peterson, but do show her account to
be overdrawn some 500.
There is no evidence that W. F. Bickel put
this money in the Savings bank, except the
entries in the pass book and the fact that the
teller's cash book in the Minnesota Savings
bank shows an excess of cash on hand un-
accounted for at the close of the days OF Oct.
and 8, 1896. There is no evidence tracing
the proceeds of these money orders into W. F.
Bickel's hands except such evidence as may
be inferred from his receipt as vice president
on the money orders, and the stamp showing
that they were paid Oct T. 1896.
From all this evidence 1t appears that Hulda
Peterson has a legal and valid claim against
the Minnesota Savings bank for the $26S.o9
credited in her pass-book by an officer Of the
bank.
T
clusion that Hulda Peterson turned these
money orders over to the Minnesota Savings
bank, and that if she did not in the first ih-
stance, her subsequent conduct in turning over
the pass book, accepting the credit therein
of s26S.09, her surrender of the receipt upon
getting that credit, and the fact that she pre-
sented her book on two occasions afterwards
to the teller of the bank, and on one occasion
to Mr.. Bickel, and drew out money on this
account which was charged to her account in
her pass-book, and the fact that she has sworn
to and presented claim against the Mime
sofa Savings bank for the amount, and has
assigned this claim for value, coupled with the
fact that she has had account with the
bank since July of last year-all of these facts
conclusively show. 1t seems to me, that she
at least consented to and ratified the action
of her agent in crediting her account with the
Minnesota Savings bank with this amount
and that If the bank had not failed she could
go there today and draw out this money. From
these facts I incline to the opinion that the
money which W. F. Bickel is charged with
having converted from Hulda Peterson was at
the time charged the property of the Mnne-
sofa Savings bank; that the allegations
charged in the indictment in respect to the
ownership of this money are not sustained by
the evidence and that there is no evidence in
this from which the jury would be justi-
fed in drawing the conclusion that the money
was Hulda Peterson's property, and that the
motion to dismiss should be granted This
action is dismissed.
Mr.. Donnelly-We move for the dis
charge of the prisoner, your honor. on
this case
The Court-Discharge under this In
dictment. Gentlemen OF the jury, your
services in connection with this case
are at an end.
In the faternoon Mr. Bickel and his
attorneys, Mcdonald and Barnard. ap-
peared before Judge Lewis and offered
to furnish bail under the last two In
dictments, namely the Indictment
charging the larceny Of $6,250 worth Of
promissory notes and the Conroy in
dictment charging Mr.. Bickel with ac-
checks, drafts etc., when he knew the
Minnesota Savings bank was inso1vent.
Under the former Indictment Judge
Lewis had fixed the bail at $4,000, but
inasmuch as the notes have been re-
turned, the court reduced the bail to
$4,000, remarking that If Mr.. Bickel
was guilty at all In this case, he was
only technically guilty. The bail un-
der the Conroy Indictment was fixed
at $1,500.
Mr. Bickel offered as sureties on
both bonds Patrick Conley, Urf Lam
prey and L. c. Anderson, who were
accepted by the court, whereupon Mr..
Bickel was discharged from custody