The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-06-10
THE STEVENS JURY
Continued From FIRST Page.

| +. Baker and William Bickel The
former was in Central america and
the latter in British Columbia or Call
fornia. It might be possible, the at
! torney said. Ii he had time to procure
additional witnesses in the case, to in
| troduce some further evidence, but
| from the proceedings thus far he did
| rot see how he would be able to move
| further in the case.
| Judge Lewis thought there was no
reason why there should not be an
| adjournment taken to allow the state
| to procure other evidence. Here was
| Mr.. Buffers chance again, and he
| didn't overlook it, In a forcible man
ner he said:
I'VE desire to say in this connection
| that it has been the hope and reliance
! of our client that the necessities OF
the state, in an i'll begotten prosecu-
ton, would not persuade the court to
bend the law of evidence We know
| that it will not. The state needed fur
] Their time in the middle Of the fore
noon. The state has no case. The
| state must nolle this indictment, if
we permit it, and we will permit 1t
when that jury signs verdict Of not
| guilty, to forecloSe forever the perSecu-
ton which has been wrongfully COM
menced-for purposes / care not to
| discuss hefe@against cur client. That
| is all l have to say. We ask that the
/ court adhere to the law Give the
! state all the advantage it is entitled
| to. But now having waived defects
in the indictment, having gone to trial
upon void indictment, having waived
| defects which we advised our client
were fatal to this panel and now. when
the prosecution announces that it has
no case, we say we are entitled to
have him proceed and close this case
and go on no more fishing excursions
to occupy your honors time any. long
er We object to an adjournment.
Judge Lewis said the court would
adjourn until 10 o'clock today. and MIR.
Butler said that would be agreeable
to the defense from necessity.
STORY IN DETAIL.
When the court opened vest arday
morning it took but half an hour to
complete the selection Of the jury. The
four men who were accepted were S.
A. Thompson, farmer; H. T. Selby.
| salesman; Thomas ]. Tracey, grocer
| and F. H. Sabin, insurance agent
! This completed the twelve good men
and true. and after they had been
duly sworn County Attorney Anderson
opened the case with a brief statement
of the facts as charged in the indict-
ment.
A copy of the articles of the Union
Savings Bank of Rochester, Mimi, was
introduced as evidence, this institution
being the one which was afterward
bank.
Mr.. Butler objected to the reception
in evidence of the articles of incOrpo-
ration. He called attention to the in
dictment which set up that the institu-
ton, of which the defendant was pres
ident, was referred to as a corporation
doing a banking business. The state
could not, Mr.. Butler claimed avoid
the variance between the Indictment
and the proof offered. 1t would not be
permitted for the state to show that
this was savings association in the
face of the indictment which charged
that it was "a corporation doing
banking business" The proof must
correspond with the charge. The state
was offering proof that this was a
savings institution. under the laws Of
! 1857, while associations under that law
| did not enjoy the powers of banking
corporations and could not do a gen
eral banking business
County Attorney Anderson stated
that he was simply trying to prove at
this time that the bank had been in
cCrporated, and Judge Lewis allowed
the articles in evidence The state
then introduced certificates necessary
to show that the Union Savings Bank
of Rochester had become the Ramsey
County Savings bank and later the
Minnesota Savings bank.
T. D. Sheehan, one of the receivers Of
the bank appointed by the court, was
called and testified as to certain books
which he had taken possession of as
receiver He identified several books,
and one in particular, which was called
the minute record book in which rec
6rds Of the proceedings of the board
OF trustees were kept.
BICKEL DECLINED TO TALK
The next witness called was William
F. Bickel. He was called to prove
the connection of Mr. Stevens with the
bank as one Of it's officers and trustees
When asked if he was an officer of the
Minnesota Savings bank Mr. Bickel il.
soft and gentle voice, said that he
must decline to answer any questions
under the advice Of his attorney, on
the ground that they might have some
bearing on his case, which would come
up at some future date in the court.
w. II. Mcdonald, attorney for Mr.
Bickel, said he objected to the wit
ness answering any questions that
might be used as admissions hereafte,
against him. There was a lengthy ar
gument over the rights Of the witness,
and finally court was adjourned to al
low the county attorney to look I'D au-
thoritieS on the question.
When the court convened at O'Clock
William f. Bickel was recalled to thu.
stand. He was handed a record book
by the county attorney and asked to
turn to pages from forty-five to eighty
LCol INCLUSIVE anu STATE, IL ne knew,
whose handwriting the records were ill.,
Mr.. Bickel refused to answer, and his
attorney, Mcdonald, stated to the court
that he had directed the witness not to
answer any questions
County Attorney Anderson wanted
the court to instruct the attorney that
he could not break into the examina-
ton. The court, however, did no.
agree with the prosecuting attorney,
and remarked that the witness seemed
to be exercising his right.
Mr.. Butler said he understood that
witnesses could be represented by at
torneys in court, if they desired. The
question was read again and Mr..
BiCkel stated that he did know the
handwriting, but refused to answer
County Attorney Anderson suggested
that, if the witness did not answer, ne
would be in contempt of court Judge
Lewis asked witness why he refused
to answer, and Mr. Bickel stated his
answer might tend to criminate him
self in the indictments now pending
against him.
The county attorney cited authorities
to the effect that the court must be
ground to suppose that the witness
would incriminate himself before The
advantage of privilege could be
claimed.
Judge Lewis said that witness, being
an officer of the bank. and, as his an
swer might incriminate him. he
thought he should be protected. The
county attorney raised the point that
there was no evidence to show that the
witness was an officer of the bank. and
that the authorities were to the effect