The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-15
st sa % @


they were taken on or about the 18th day OF
January, 1897.
Then followed a description Of the
notes set out in the indictment.
In order to convict the defendant the state
is not required to prove he embezzled all OF
these notes, as charged in the Indictment.
1t is sufficient to convict the defendant OF
larceny if the state proves him guilty be-
yond a reasonable doubt OF embezZling any
one or more of these notes, or OF any part
OF the money charged in the indictment:
Some testimony has been received relating
to the so-called NJ. G. Tanner note, and three
other notes called the st. Aubn Dion
notes, Endorsed by John Nusser Sr., and re-
ferred to as the "Nusser' notes. In consider
ing the case you will bear in mind the de-
PENDANT is not charged with the larceny Of
these notes and you will not consider them
except in so far as the testimony and these
notes may throw light upon the actions of
defendant and reveal his intent with refer
ence to the taking Of property with which
he is charged in the indictment. These notes
are in evidence for no other purpose aid
en- have no other place in this case.
The law presumes every person innocent
WHO is accused Of crime, and this presump-
ton goes with the person upon the trial and
remains with him until the state by compe-
tent evidence satisfies your minds beyond
reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the
crime charged or of some degree of crime
embraced within the charge.
A reasonable doubt, is not doubt whether
the accused may not possibly be innocent,
but a sincere doubt whether he has been
proven guilty. Such a doubt is called rea-
sonable doubt. AS certainty advances doubt
recedes. If one has reasonable certainty he
cannot at the same time be reasonably doubt
full; that is, he cannot entertain a reasonable
doubt of the same fact of which ne is rea-
sonably certain. All the jury can he ex-
pected to do is to be reasonably and morally
certain of the facts which they are to find
true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not
proof beyond every possible or imaginary
doubt. 1t is proof to a moral certainty as
distinguished from proof to an absolute GER
tainty. Proof is deemed to be beyond rea-
sonable doubt when the evidence is sufficient
to impress the judgment of ordinarily pru-
dent men with conviction on which Trey
would act without hesitation in respect TO
their own most important affairs and con-
Germs in life.
After reviewing the testimony of Re-
ceivers Sheehan and Dickson, concern
ing the promissory notes the defendant
is charged with stealing, the court
said:
You have heard the testimony of these wit
nesses purporting to stae what the defend
ant, Bickel, said to them ON different occa-
sions explanatory of his conduct and purpose
in taking the notes and explaining the entries
in reference thereto; and in this connection
1t is proper for you to carefully examine
the evidence in this case and consider wheth-
er or not he did, in fact, use these notes,
or any of them, for the purposes for which
it is claimed the testimony shows he claimed
to have taken them; and it is for you to
say, from all the evidence in the case, wheth-
er the defendant, Bickel, at the time of TAX
ing the notes, intended to wrongfuily and I'M
lawfully appropriate them to his own use.
The mere taking of the notes, unless cou-
pied with an intent to deprive and defraud
the bank of its property, would not be lar
ceny. If the defendant, as an officer hav-
ing charge Of the affairs of the bank took
these notes for the purpose and with the in
tent of using them to raise funds with which
h1IC fDnC Of rH
secure persons for money actually advanced
the bank, or to secure himself for salary due
and advances made, and with no intent to
cheat and defraud the bank then he cannot
be convicted of stealing them. And in de-
termining with what intent the defendant
acted at that time, you may scrutinhe all
that was said and done and the entries on
the book, so far as in evidence-the making
of the credit bills, discount slips, the re-
turn of the notes, the statements of the de-
defendant and all the surrounding facts and
circumstances appearing in evidence in con-
nection with the taking and return of the
notes, bearing in mind that the color of the
act in a measure determines the complexion
of the intent. And if you find from the evil
dence that these notes were the property of
the bank, and the defendant knowingly and
unlawfully took and appropriated them to his
use, then the presumption arises that he
did so with the intent to injure and defraud
the bank.
The indictment also charges the defendant
with the larceny of money. One of the ques-
lions for you to determine is, did the defend
ant take the money, any part of it,
therein charged And in this connection you
will determine whether If defendant drew
checks against the Minnesota Savings bank,
such checks are the items charged in the in
dictment and, If so, were they paid by the
Minnesota Savings bank, and whether or not
defendant had funds in this bank at the time
with which to meet them.
Considerable testimony has been received
bearing upon defendants dealing with the
bank for some time prior to the 9Th day of
November 1896. This testimony is only COM
petent for you tc consider in determining
whether defendant was owing the bank or not
at the time it is claimed he drew checks for
the items set out in the bill of particulars
as bearing upon his right at that time to
have his checks paid by this bank-if, in
fact, they were so paid.
The defendant is accused Of the larceny of
certain money which the state claims was
paid out by the Minnesota Savings bank on
checks of Hazel NJ Bickel: 1t is undisputed
that Hazel NJ. Bickel is the wife of defend
ant. But before you can find the defendant
guilty of larceny Of money paid by this
bank if any on her checks, the evidence
must satisfy you beyond g. reasonable doubt
that she drew checks on this bank which
were by it paid through the procurement of
this defendant at time when neither detend-
ant nor his wife had funds in the bank with
which to pay these checks, and with the IN
tent on the part of the defendant to de-
fraud the bank and to appropriate its funds
to his own use or to the use Of his wife
II however, you should find from the evil
dence that defendant, his wife, or both of
them having no funds In the Minnesota saw
ings bank drew checks on this bank, which
were paid by 1t through the procurement OF
defendant and if the sums SO paid are among
the items of money charged to have been
stolen in the bill OF particulars ana lnalct.
ment, then you will determine the intent
which moved the defendant to so take or ap-
propriate the funds thus drawn for, in the
absence of an intent to wrongfully appro-
pirate the property of the bank there can
be no larceny. And thus the question of
intent as it bears upon the taking Of the
money. as well as the taking of the notes
charged in the Indictment becomes an lmpor-
tant question in this case.
And if you should believe from the evl-
dence beyond a reasonable doubt, that the
defendant is guilty of wrongfully taking any
of the property charged in the indictment,
whether money or notes Of value, and you
should also find that subsequently all OF the
property so wrongfully taken has been re
turned to the bank, or its receivers, either
bv defendant or by some one TOR MIN, you
are instructed that under the law such re-
turn of the property would not In itself re-
1ieve the defendant of guilt, and your duty
would still require you to ind the delenoant
guilty. in the absence of any other FACTS TO
render the taking lawful
The court then delivered certain OF
the defendants requests to charge.
There were thirtyone requests in all,
of which eleven were granted, and thir-
teen denied absolutely, While the re-
naming requests were either covered
bv the foregoing general charge or
denied except as covered by the general
charge.
Mr. Buffers ninth request to charge,
which was granted and the charge
thereupon given, seemed the most sig
foxy h 6RfQnd-