The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-07-21
WILLIAM F. BICKEL'S ATTORNEY
IS RAISING ALL KINDS OF
OBJECTIONS
IN THE TRIAL FOR PERJURY.
ASSISTANT COUNTY .AT'FORNEEY HAS
ALMOST AS MUCH TROUBLE As
ANDERSON
GETTING EVIDENCE TO THE JURY
Judge Lewis Now Considering an
Objection That Is Practically
81 Motion to

criminal court Yesterday afternoon 1t
was to take under advisement an op-
lection raised by the defense in the
Bickel trial, that amounted in effect to
a motion to dismiss the case. The state
had placed on the stand M. l.. Coun-
tryman, the attorney for the plaintiff
in the garnishment proceedings against
the Minnesota Savings bank. Assistant
County Attorney Zollman asked Mr..
Countryman if he remembered the tes-
timony given by Mr.. Bickel in the gar
nishment proceedings before Referee
George N. Hillman. >
Mr.. Mcdonald objected to the ques-
ton on the ground hat Mr.. Hillman
not having taken the oath of office as
referee was unauthorized to administer
the oath to Mr.. Bickel. This objection
raised the issue of law relied upon by
the defense, and the arguments follow
ed after the court had excused the
jury and witnesses from further at
tendance until 10 a. m. today. The re-
mainder of the afternoon, from $3.50 I'M
til . o'clock, was devoted to the argu-
ment.
Mr.. Mcdonald, for the defense, con-
tended, in the first place, that there had
been no order of the court appointing
MI. Rillman referee to take disclosure
in the action of the St. Paul Fire Brick
company against Thurston, O'Connor
& Lucius. True, Judge Kelly had made
this memorandum on his docket or
calendar. Referred to George N. Hill
man as referee to take disclosure. KEEL
ly, j. but the attorney for the plain
Till had not presented any order to the
court for his signature, and no order
had been made. Mr.. Mcdonald also
touched on the point brought out by
the testimony, that on Judge Kelly's
docket or calendar the case was en-
tefed as the st. Paul Brick
against Thurston and Others, not as
the st. Paul Fire Brick company.
But the main contention of Mr. Mo
Donald was that Mr.. Hillman, not
having taken the oath of office az ref
cree, had no power or authority to adj
minister an oath to Mr.. Bickel. 1t was
true mat MI. Hillman happened to be
d notary public, and as such qualified
10 administer oaths, but in answer to
this point Mr.. Mcdonald cited a Ken
lucky case in which it was held that
a Judge of election, who had omitted
TO take the oath of office as such indigo
OF election, although he happened IN
De a justice of the peace, could not
adnnlnlSter an oath in his capacity as
Judge of election. In the case cited.
d person desiring to cast vote falsely
sWofe before the said judge=of election
that ne was t~wenty-one years of age.
and the supreme court Of the state
held that he could not be indicted for
perjury.
In answer to the argument of Mr..
Mcdonald, the assistant county at
tofney hrst maintained that the memo
randum of Judge Kelly on the docket
book, which was duly signed by the
Judge, constituted an order appoint
ing Mr.. Hillman referee, and was
just as effectual for that purpose as
though it had been written on a separ-
ate piece of PAPER AS to the conten-
ton of counsel that Mr.. Hillman. hav-
ing omitted to take the oath of office
was unauthorized to administer the
oath to MI. Bickel, the assistant coun-
ty attorney maintained that this omis-
sion on the part of Mr.. Hillman con-
Stltuted nothing more than a mere
irregularity. Even though he had neg
lected to take the oath, he had entered
upon the discharge of his duties as
a referee and was a referee de facto.
AS such, he a the right to and did
administer the oath of a witness to
Mr.. Bickel. Mr.. Zollman cited au-
thor1t1es to ~substantiate his position.
one OF them a New York case, square
~ opposed to the case cited by the
defense.
The assistant county attorney also
pointed out to the court that the stat
ute requiring a referee to tax the
prescribed oath specified all referees
appointed "to hear and determine"
matters, whereas. in the case at bar,
MIR. Hillman had been appointed a
referee simply to talk testimony on
the disclosure proceedings and was not
authorized to determine" anything.
Judge Lewis took the question I'M
der Amusement, announcing hat he
would render his decision at the open
ing of court this forenoon.
When court opened in the forenoon.
the new special venire was on hand:
n the work of securing the jury was
resumed. In the course of an hour
the remaining five jurors were obtain
ed. The jury, as completed, comprises
the following citizens:
r G. Schroeder, Charles Zweig.
William Gundlach, Peter w. Mathews.
John E. Williams, George w. Trout.
Willard S. Treat, Angus Stewart. Cor
nelius Boyle, William M. Walker, John
Fl. Wheeler, Henry B. Walsh.
The assistant county attorney, after
a brief opening, offered In evidence a
stipulation regarding the testimony of
George N. Hillman. who is at present
in California on his summer vacation.
This stipulation proved an obstacle to
progress. The defense objected vigor-
ously to it's being received in evidence,
although the defendants attorneys
were parties to the stipulation. In
brief it ~stipulates the material facts
of the disclosure before Mr.. Hillman.
and agrees that the testimony taken
before him may be read in court, the
defendant reserving the right to object
that such testimony is not material
or relevant in a prosecution for per-
jury. 1t also admits hat Hillman did
not take the oath prescribed by stat
ute.
In objecting to the stipulation being
received in evidence Mr.. Mcdonald
said that he had discovered that he
had no right to stipulate away the
rights of his client, VINO could not be
bound by such an agreement to his
prejudice.
81 didn't ask for the stipulation