The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-04
ABSENCE OF CONGRESSMAN STE
VEINS THREW THE BICkEL
CASE INTO PAPERS.
HEINLEIN ON THE STAND.
IDENTIFIED DEBIT SLIPS, SIGMA
TUREs AND OTHER MATTERS
of BANKING DETAIL.
FACT OF STEVENS DEPARTURE
Led Pierce Butler to Strongly Urge
an Adjournment, but Judge
Lewis Denied 1t.

The most interesting development Of |
the Bickel case came to light yester
day morning very soon after Judge |
Lewis assembled the bench. Congress |
man F. G. Stevens had left the city. |
He was on his way to the national |
capital, Notwithstanding the subpoena |
of the day before requiring him to be
present in court at 10 a. m. When the |
fact of Mr.. Stevens departure from
the city was formally announced, it |
created little surprise, as it was rumor-
ed the day before that Mr.. Stevens in !
tended to leave st. Paul ON Thursday
night.
Mr.. Butler did not miss the oppor-
tunity of scoring a point for the de-
tense. AS soon as court opened, he
asked that Mr.. Stevens be recalled for
cross eXamination. 1t was thought by
some that Mr.. Butler had concluded his
cross-examination of Mr.. Stevens the
day before, when he remarked that no
| more questions occurred to him to ask,
but when he asked that Mr.. Stevens
be called again the court so instructed.
In vain did Deputy Clerk Sundberg
call IF. G. Stevens, F. c. Stevens
Equally unavailing were the shouts of
Bailiff Jansen down the corridors. Mr.
| Stevens, being in Chicago, could not
hear them
Mr.. Butler produced the subpoena
served on Mr.. Stevens, and In response
| to his request the court issued a writ
| of attachment directed against the per-
son of Mr. Stevens to compel his at
tendance in court, and directed the
! sheriff to serve it. An hour later the
sheriff returned the attachment with
the Endorsement that he was unable to
find Mr.. Stevens in the county. Every
one in the court room smiled signi-
| ficantly.
In the meantime County Attorney
Anderson had recalled Edward Helm
| lein to the stand.
| Mr.. Butler objected to the introduce
| ton Of any testimony until the de-
| PENDANT was permitted to cross exam
| inc Mr.. Stevens.
The court offered to adjourn for a
| reasonable time, till the attachment
was returned by the sheriff. This did
not suit Mr.. Butler, who asked for all
| adjournment until Mr.. Stevens was
brought into court
The court denied the request and
| the trial proceeded
| Mr.. Butler wanted the record clear
| on the point, and made a statement,
| for the minutes, to the effect that the
| court convened at 10 o'clock; that Mr.
| Stevens was called for cross-examina-
! ticn; that an attachment was ordered
issued; that, thereupon the state was
! permitted to call another witness
against the objection of the defendant;
| that, in point of fact, no attachment
was issued and no return made.
The court stated that the clerk had
| been directed to prepare the attach
hod
| prepared. He did not think it right to
| delay the court an unreasonable time
| to await Mr.. Stevens. After consider
| able sparring between Mr.. Butler and
| Judge Lewis as to their respective po-
sitions, Mr.. Anderson took up the direct
examination of Witness Heinlein. A
| check was handed to Heinlein, and he
was asked to identify the handwriting
| MIR. Butler objected, on the ground that
| it was improper to receive any testi-
mony pending that to be given by Mr.
| Stevens.
Judge Lewis said that Mr.. Stevens
| would be called when he arrived in
| court.
The witness said the check was in
Mr.. Bickel's handwriting.
Check after check made by Bickel
were shown witness in the same way
and identified as in Bickers handwrit-
ing.
When the Stevens attachment was
| brought into court, Mr.. Butler renew
! ed his objection to the introduction of
any testimony till Stevens was pro-
| duced.
The court stated that Mr.. Butler had
said the night before, that the defense
had no further questions to ask Mr..
| Stevens; that the defense had requested
| to be allowed to crcss-examine Mr.
! Stevens this morning. and he had
| granted the request. He did not think
| that under the circumstances he was
| justified in stopping all proceedings.
Mr.. Butler made some observations
| as to the courts statement for the re-
! cord, and once more the trial was re-
| stunned.
Exhibits 20 to 55, being checks in
amounts from 81 to $500, were shown
the witness who identified the hand
writing as that of the defendant The
! defense contented Itself with Directing
to the several exhibits, and checking
! them up on copy of the bill of par
| ticulars.
Mr.. Anderson-What was said by
Bickel to you with reference to your
| charging on the debt slips any other
| checks than his own from time to time
| as they came in and were paid?
| Mr.. Heinlein-Nothing particular was
| said, except that the checks were
shown him and he said that they were
all right.
\
! to where the checks were to be paid?
| Mr.. Heinlein-They were to be paid
| that's what he said.
| Mr. Anderson-What did he say with
| reference to where the items were to
| be charged when paid?
Mr.. Heinlein-He said nothing to me,
| Mr.. Anderson-Do you know of your
| own knowledge If Hazel NJ. Bickel had
an account in the bank between No
vember and January Is, 1896.
| Mr.. Heinlein-She had none
Mr.. Butler was permitted to test his
| means Of knowledge by cross examina-
| ton. To him, Heinlein stated that the
| Rickel children had savings accounts
at the bank and that he had nothing
| to do with the keeping of the saving
| accounts He could not tell whether
| Mrs Bickel had a savings account in
| the bank or not.
| Mr. Anderson-Then in your answer
| to my question you meant that Mrs
Bickel had no open account?
Witness-Yes, sir.
| Mr. Anderson-When money was de-
| posted on savings accounts who re-
ceived the deposits and made the rec
| ords?
Witness-I did.
Mr.. Anderson-Have you any recol-
| lection of Mrs. Bickel opening an ac-
| count at the bank or making deposits
| Of money?
Witness-She did not to my knowl-
edge.