The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-17
Objection overruled and defendant

Newspaper company, Whlcn the ue-
PENDANT comedies are the articles.
Mr. Jackson-We concede that that is
a true copy of the articles, but we OBJ
ject to it as incompetent. irrelevant
and immat erial and not pleaded in the
indictment.
Objection overruled and defendant
excerpts.
The articles Of incorporation were
then introduced as Exhibit b.
CITY EDITOR GRAY.
James Gray, the first Witness said he
was a newspaper man" generally and
city editor Of the Times particularly.
He had been city editor about four
years, and before that telegraph editor
and managing editor. Mr.. Peterson
began to question Mr.. Gray about his
duties as managing editor, and Mr..
Jackson's objection went for nothing.
Mr.. Gray brought the history Of the
Times down to the present and de-
scribed his duties as city editor. Mr..
Gray was chary about defining his re-
lations to the editorial staff and to Mr..
Blanchard. At Mr.. Peterson's request
he enlightened the jury as to the or
ganization Of the Times editorial stan.
Mr. Peterson continued to ask ques-
tions as to who was authorized to dis
charge or hire employees on the Times.
Mr. Jackson objected right along, put
his objections were overruled, and Mr..
Gray finally gave a list of heads or
departments who had power to hire or
discharge men, among them naming
Mr.. Haskell and himself. Mr.. Gray
admitted that he did not discharge any
employe without first consulting with
other persons on the staff. To the
question whom he consulted, defense
made an objection which was over
ruled, and witness admitted that he
consulted the managing editor.
A copy of the Times title page of
Aug. 1 was then put in evidence. 1t
contained the announcement of the
positions held on the paper by Mr..
Haskell Mr.. Gray and Mr.. Blanchard.
Mr. Gray said he thought the same
announcement had been run ever since.
Numerous questions were asked and
answered regarding the circulation OF
the Times Incidentally, the witness
made clear that Mr.. Haskell was the
managing editor of the paper but he
didn't know whether he drew salary
or not.
Mr. Gray was shown a letter from
Samuel Hill to John Blanchard, dated
in the later part of July. Mr.. Blan-
chard had shown him the letter, and
they had talked about 1t. He could
not recollect that he had had any con-
vel SdllOIl Will MI. f1dShGll dDOuL TIE
letter. They had talked about the de-
cision Of Judge Russell alluded to In
the letter. Possibly all three had talk
ed about 1t.
This letter was one transmitting the
decision of Judge Russell in the Min
neapolis Trust company case regarding
the West Pullman bonds, which de-
cision completely refurcd the charges
made by the Times. The publication
of this was asked as a partial atone
ment for the wrong already done,
which 1t presumed, was not through
malice
The defense objected to inquiries as
to who constituted the reportorial staff
of the Times at the time Of the receipt
of the letter, but Mr.. Gray was ordered
| to name them. He could remember
only the names Of Cheney, Dowell,
Higgins and Stacey. There were 9TH
ers, but their names had slipped his
memory.
In the afternoon session the Hill
Blanchard letter, as above, was intro
duced in evidence The witness was
subjected to a short examination, then.
SAMUEL HILL
Was called to the stand. Mr.. Hill was
sworn and questioned by Judge Belden. He
was shown an exhibit, which proved to be
the articles of incorporation of the Mime
apol1s Trust company, and they were received
without objection. The witness gave a list
OF the board of directors, who had served
during the tendency of the West Pullman
bond deal. This was followed by the names
or the executive committee for the same term
OF years and the various officers of the cor
poration.
Mr.. Jackson commenced a cross examina-
ton, regarding the West Pullman bonds
when the state objected, the ground that
the defense must show that in its own case.
Il want him to point out which of these
men were involved in that DEAL" cried Mr..
Jackson.
dence which Mr.. Jackson was seeking to get
In.
I'VE conceded that the Minneapolis Trust
company held those bonds, as receiver" said
Judge Belden. I'VE have no objection to the
facts coming in, but If Mr.. Jacksons ques-
tions were allowed it would entirely change
the order of trial.
Mr.. Hill was asked what duties as presi-
dent he had to perform. Objection was made
but not sustained. Witness answered, the
duties named in the bylaws of the company
He was then asked If he had personal knowl-
edge of or had given personal direction to the
disposition OF property in the hands of the
company as trustee. objection was made and
sustained. Considerable questioning followed
regarding the duties Of the president during
which several objections were made and sus-
tanned.
Witness was then questioned regarding the
duties Of Mr.. Hamblin as assistant secre-
tary, and whether Mr.. Hamblin was an Off
Ger of the court, to which the witness an
swered no.
Mr.; Jackson-Whatever Mr. Hambrn did
whether it was pursuant to an order of the
court or not, he did it as the officer of the
trust company, didn't he?
At this point objection was made to the
line of cross examination, the prosecution
showing that the defense by ingenious ques-
tioning was trying to shift the burden of the
proof. The defense claimed that 1t wanted
to show who was responsible for Hamblin's
action. Mr. Jackson said he ed fo
where Hamblin got his authority for his &C
TONS Witness was allowed to answer yes
or no, and answered no.
Questions were then asked to show who
were members of the executive committee
from 1893 to 1896, and who the vice presi-
dents
Mr.. Lindey, secretary and treasurer.
@. And Hambin was assistant secretary
at that time? A. Let's see. was trying to
think when-only until Nov; !, 1895.
@. l say, in the fall Of 1894 and the win
Rotary? A. Yes, think so.
@. What were the duties and authority
Of MT: Lindley, during the fall of 94 and
the winter and spring Of '95 as secretary
and treasurer?
Objected to by the state as incompetent,
irrelevant and immaterial and not proper
cross examination.
The Court-Objection sustained We won't
go any further with that.
Mr.. Jackson thought that was directly
in the line which the court held proper as
to Hamblin and the others
The Court-We!l, If that calls simply for
the general duties, 1 have no objection to
its being asked and answered, but 1 don't
want to go any further into the details of
the matter. If that is all the counsel wishes
to bring out, all right.
Mr. Jackson am very frank to say that
I want to bring out who were the responsible
officers of that concern charged with the duty
of doing It's business 1 supposed that was
the object in showing who It's officers were,
who it's executive committee were, ETC., in the
examination in chief and 1 wanted to show
Il more Mainly in the CROSS examination.