The Saint Paul globe., 1897-07-20
BIcKEL TRIAL. IS ON
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY Is
TRYING A CASE HE WANTED
DISMISSED.
THAT CHARGING PERJURY.
THE REASON WHY HE WISHED TO
STRIKE OFF THIS INDICT-
MENT.
ANOTHER REFLECTION ON ROGERS.
Judge Lewis Refused to Dismiss the
Case on the Technical Grounds
Urged by ZOIlmnn.
THAT CHARGING PERJURY.
REFLECTION ON ROGERS.


ed. That case has been put off until
October. Instead, Mr.. Bickel is under
going trial on the indictment charging
him with perjury. This change OF
programme was brought about rather
suddenly, for reasons, some OF which
were made public yesterday, and some
of which were not.
The reasons for continuing the lar
ceny case until the October term were
disclosed in an affidavit by the assis-
tant county attorney, the substance of
which is mentioned elsewhere; but that
Mr.. Bickel would at once be placed Oh
trial on the perjury indictment was a
change in the programme that even
the county attorneys office did rot look
for. The fact is Assistant County At
torney Zoilman had intended all along
to enter nolle prOsequi to this indict-
ment. But the court took different
view of the case and directed that Mr..
Bickel lie tried On the Indictment charg-
ing perjury.
Assistant County Attorney Zoliman's 3
reasons for preferrirg to nolle the per-
jury case, were set forth in a type writ
submitted to the court a few days ago.
The substance of the memorandum is
as follows:
The indictment charging William e.
Bickel with perjury is founded upon
the disclosure made by him in garnish-
ment proceedings against the Mime
sofa Savings bank in an action began
Nov 10, 1896, by the st. Paul Fire Brick
company, against Charles E. Thurston,
John E. O'Connor and e. ]. Lucius
On Dec. 5, 1896, at special term, Judge
Kelly made this entry on his calendar:
Referred to George N. Hillman to
make disclosure-Kelly j." No other
entry, so Mr.. Zollman alleges, was
made upon the records or minutes of
the court. Mr.. Zollman then cites a
case from Barbour's reports, holding
that such a memorandum made by a
judge on his calendar, is not sufficient
tc constitute an order. An entry at
least in the minutes of the court is
required for the purpose. Mr. Zollman
adds that it is a debatable question in
his mind, whether the courts would
sustain this position.
But passing on, Mr.. Zollman calls at
tention to the next proposition by
which the state is confronted, which he
says, is much more serious. 1t is this
Did Referee George N. Hillman have
authority to administer the oath to
William F. Bickel upon the garnish-
ment disclosure proceedings? AS a
matter of fact, Mr. Hillman did not
take the oath of office as referee. As
sun1ing that he was duly appointed as
such referee, section 1884 of the Statutes
of 1894, provides that all referees shall,
before entering upon the discharge Of
their official duties, take and subscribe
an oath as provided by statute Mr.
Hillman did not do this. Query" says
Mr.. Zollman, "can the testimony of Mr.
Bickel given under such circumstances,
be made the foundation for perjury?"
Continuing, Mr.. Zollman says that
to lay the foundation for perjury it
is essential that the oath be lawfully
administered by competent authority.
Mr.. Zollman expressed the opinion that
a referee is not legally capable unless
he has qualified.
In conclusion, Mr. Zollman informs
the court that all evidences of Mr..
Bickers guilt are at hand, and We're
1t not for the legal Irregularities attend
ing the case, conviction would follow
the trial as surely as night follows
day. But under the circumstances the
assistant county attorney could not see
his way clear to take any other course
than to nolle the Indictment.
ty attorneys memorandum careful con-
sideration, and finally came to the con-
clusion that the omission to enter the
order appointing George N. Hillman
referee and the latter's neglect to take
the oath, were not such fatal defects or
errors as would warrant entering a
nolle to the Indictment Accordingly,
Judge Lewis directed the trial to pro-
ceed.
1t is understood that when Clerk of
Courts Rogers heard of the assistant
county attorneys memorandum in
which the latter pointed out the neglect
of deputy clerk to enter in the court
records Judge Kelly'S order appointing
Hillman referee, he was considerably
put out this being the second time that
the county attorneys Office has evinced
a disposition to criticise the office of
the clerk Of courts.
AS soon as court opened yesterday
forenoon, it was found that only twen-
ty-eight of the special Venire of fifty
jurors ordered were in attendance. The
sheriff had been able to secure personal
service on only twenty-five. An at
tachment was issued for one absentee.
George G. Benz, but the gentlemen
could not be found. OF the remaining
twenty five, thirteen could not be
found in the city and twelve were
served by the sheriff leaving a CODY
of the summons at their residences.
OF these twelve, four appeared Orders
directing the remaining eight to show
cause why they should not be pun
ished for contempt, were thereupon
issued.
AT the very outset of the trial, At
torney Mcdonald, in behalf of Mr..
Bickel, objected to the entire jury
panel, asserting that the jurors had
been improperly drawn, in that the
list made up was placed in the jury
box with other names already there.
1t was a special venire, but drawn in
the regular way from the jury box.
The question was, should the jury box
have been emptied of all names or mo-? e?
Mr.. Mcdonald maintained that it
should, and he also believed that the
law required that the names of the
jurors in the box should be written on
folded slips of paper instead of on
card boards as they are written.
Clerk Of Court E. G. Rogers was
called to the witness stand to explain
how the names were drawn from the
box. 1t had always been the custom
to leave the names not drawn in the
box, and in so doing, Mr.. Rogers said.
he had followed the example of his
predecessors.
Mr.. Mcdonald thereupon disclaimed
any intention of criticising Mr.. Rogers
or his management of the clerks Of
fee He merely wanted to ascertain
the view of the court as to the regu-
larity of the panel.
Judge Lewis overruled the objection
to the panel and the empanelling of
the jury was proceeded with. Out of
the first eleven men examined, three
jurors were chosen. Court then ad-
journed for the noon recess.
Resuming the work at 2 p. M, there
being only seventeen talesmen left Of
H.