The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-03

Mr. Conlin then cited numerous authori-
ties among them the famous Jake Sharp
bribery case in New York, in support OF MI:
Buffers contention that testimony In PROOF
of some other crime is not admissible to
prove the substantial crime.
The argument lasted until $3.50 p M, when
the court took a short recess, and Thereafter
overruled the objection of the defense. The
county attorney then began his examination
of Mr.. Stevens
is none other than the promissory note 1or
some $4,000, executed to the bank by MISS
Tanner, the defendants sister-in-law, MT.
Stevens was asked when he first saw this
note.
Last October, in your office" answered
Mr.. Stevens. Mr.. Stevens further testified
that he had no knowledge as to what action
the board of trustees took concerning tne
Tanner note.
what, If anything, either as trustee or
president of the bank, did you do with REFER
ence to states exhibit No. 6?' asked tne
county attorney.
'As trustee or president, dldnt hno"
anything about it,
what if anything. was ever done by you
a M1Sn Te fbe assets 50 of Sn the BANK?
81 didn't know anything about the note:
On cross examination Mr.. Stevens said that
he would not swear that the note was not
passed or approved by the board of trustees.
''Were you not, before the assignment OF the
bank, notified by the defendant, Mr.; Bickel,
that there were certain notes 10 Wnlcn lhe
bank was clearly ent.tled?
yes sir. l was"
Mr.. Anderson objected that this was not
proper examination, and the court sus-
tanned the objection, but said that Mr.. But
Ter could proceed If he wanted 10 make MT
Stevens h S own witness. Mr.. Anderson IN
sisted that Mr.. Butler declare whether ne was
making Mr.. Stevens his own witness, and
that Mr.. Butler could not break in with MS
defense at this stage of the trial. II ne
wanted to take. Mr.. Stevens testimony IN IN
behalf OF the defense, let him take I in the
shape of deposition to be read to the jury
at the proper time.
Mr.. Butler thought it very hard cruel and
unlawike for the county attorney to OBJ
ject to the defense putting in testimony out
of the regular order after he, the county at
tOrney, had violated the regular order In
introducing Mr.. Stevens testimony, as he did
Mr. Butler declared that the prosecution was
acting unfairly. If Mr.. Bickel had murdered
his own mother, such treatment would be
unfair. AS it was Mr.. Bickel was charged
with stealing notes, every one Of which he
had turned over to the county attorney.
The court ruled that the deposition Of Mr..
Stevens had best be taken.
Mr.. Butler ms sted that the court direct
the clerk to issue a subpoena to Mr.. Stevens
requesting him to be present at the next
session Of court.
Mr.. Butler declined to take the deposition
of Mr.. Stevens, then and there. He argued
that the defense was entitled to the benefit
Of Mr.. Stevens at the present time. Mr..
Stevens had declared that he would start for
Wash ,ngton the next day, and the court had
no power to hold him.
1t was after p. m. and the court took
another recess of seven minutes. Upon re-
opening court, Judge Lewis ruled that ii Mr..
Butler made Mr.. Stevens his own witness he
must take his deposition to be used at the
proper time but that IL he d not make him
a witness for the defense, then he must adj
here to the limits OF proper cross-examina-
ton.
MI. Butler thereupon resumed his cross
examination of Mr.. Stevens.
Did the defendant state to you the amount
or value Of the notes in the possession Of
the bank that did not belong to it?' in
quired Mr.. Butler.
The county attorney objected to the ques-
ton, and the objection was sustained.
Mr.. Stevens admitted that he knew that
Mr.. Bickel had his own individual property
and notes in and about the bank. Mr.. Stevens
was asked if he knew whether the notes re-
ferred to by Mr.. Biclel were the same as
those set forth in the Indictment. The county
attorney objected, and the court sustained the
objection, that it was not proper cross-exam-
nation.
Mr.. Butler then offered to prove by the
witness that these notes were the same as
those purported to be set forth in the in
dictment, but the court again sustained the
objection OF the county attorney.
Mr.. Stevens testified that the trustees Of
the Minnesota Savings bank held several in
formal meetings during the two weeks that
interviewed between the failure of the Allie
MAMMA bank and the Minnesota Savings
bank.
MIR. Stevens testified that he was very busy
testify as to what the trustees might nave
done. Mr.. Stevens was asked if he remem-
bered that the board of trustees directed the
defendant to change the character of the
accounts of certain depostors from open to
time accounts. The county attorney objected,
and the court sustained the objection.
Wasn't this note-states exhibit No. o
embraced among the notes that Mr.. Bickel
said did not belong to the bank?" asked Mr..
Butler.
Mr. stevens-I don't know.
Mr.. Stevens admitted that he and the other
trustees of the Minnesota Savings bank were
especially busy during all Of the panicky
times.
"And during all this time you implicitly
trusted Mr.. Bickel did you not?"
Mr.. Stevens assented.
County Attorney Anderson object.
The Court-Objection sustained.
Mr.. Butler-I offer it as a part of the de-
fecse.
Mr. Butler then asked Mr. Stevens if he
did not now believe that Mr.. Bickel had acted
honestly, but under the objection of the coun-
ty attorney Mr.. Stevens was not permitted to
answer this question.
Mr.. Stevens admitted that during the time
referred to many of the open accounts of the
depositors were changed and transferred.
Mr. Butler here offered to show that the
defendant never received the balances or the
credit for the balances to which he was en-
entitled.
The court ruled that it would not be proper
roSS-eXamination.
Mr. Butler then asked permission to make
Mr. Stevens his witness. This request was
also denied, in accordance with the former
ruling, unless Mr.. Butler would consent to
take Mr.. Stevens deposition.
In view of the courts ruling Mr.. Butler
said that he had no more questions to ask
the witness on cross-examination. but he
desired to file a subpoena which had been
served on Mr.. Stevens, requiring him to ap-
pear at 10 a. m. today. In addition Mr.. But
Ter requested the court to instruct Mr.. Stevens
to be in court at 10 o'clock. The court so
instructed Mr. Stevens, and then adjourned
until 10 a. N. today.