The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1897-03-12

court this forenoon. The court room
was crowded, as usual when import
ant cases come up. The defendant
and their attorneys, Schmitt & Wilson
and w. e. Young, and County Attor
ney Hughes and Pfau. & Pau, for TIN
state, were on hand.
County Attorney Hughes opened
by stating what the state intended t.
prove, and said that the evidenc,
would show it very fully. 1t would
show that:August Wendt and three
other men went to John G. Gerlich'
house accompanied by Mrs. Diemel
her husband having gone to Missouri
on the evening of Feb. :23d, remaining
there until 800 a. NJ, and then tool
the harvester and binder to Wendt':
house, Itwas taken for the purpose
of disposing of it and the state
will undertake to show that
Mrs. Diemel sinstigated the
whole matter. This was part oil
conspiracy to deprive Mr.. Gerlich OF
property to the value of 81, 800 to ST..
800. Mr.. Gerlich had offered to sell
Diemel all this property, $3.50 was
paid on it, and Mr.. 'Gerlich was put
off on various preteXts for the balance
until all was run off. Gerlich gave
gave Diemel the prices before 'Diemel
married his present wife. Diemel
could buy such articles 'as he wished
to, or all. In order to get rid of the
property, the Diemels took other
partiess partly into their confidence,
but only Mr.. and Mrs. Tochurop, Mrs.
Diemel's parents, fully into their con-
fidence.
Mr.. Sehmitt demanded separate ex-
aminations for the two defendants.
None of the lawyers had read up on
this point, and the court said that
this was the first time that the point
had been raised while he was on the
bench. There was a hustling on both
sides for law books, and some little
delay was occationed. The court
over-ruled the motion.
John G.. Gerlich was sworn for the
state.
Mr.. Schmitt objected to the taking
of any evidence, on the ground that
neither the complaint nor warrant
alleges .an offense, and particularly
the one charged. The court read the
papers, remarked that they were in
the usual form, and over-Tuled the OBJ
lection.
Mr.. Gerlich went on to tell the
story, about as it has already appeared
in these columns. He started to give
an inventory of his real and personal
farm property.
Mr.. Schmitt objected to this line of
evidence, holding that the state
should be co 1fined toi the binder and
harvester as alleged in the complaint
Mr.. Pfau said that if this was done,
the defense could allege that the $3.50
paid by Diemel had more than paid
for the binder, whereas the money
was paid on the whole property and
not ON any particular articles. Mr..
Pau said that it was desired to prove
the wholes conspiracy, which he said
was Matched on Missouri soil.
MIR. Young said that if the whole
property was not stolen it was pur-
chased, and this is not the place or
way to collect the debt. If the whole
was stolen, the state should have
alleged it. 1t was conditional sale.
Mr.. Young said that it appeared that
a conspiracy had started ia Missouri
very recently.
Mr.. Pau said that he had noticed
some Minnesota seeds of conspiracy
sprouting in the fruitful soil of Mis-
souri,, seeds that would not sprout in
Minnesota soil. The plants,were fall
ing down by their own rottenness.
Mr.. Young: "Then you admit that |
you were in Missouri
Mr.. Pfau: ''Yes, sir, l do"
This drew a laugh from the crowd,
which the court sternly repressed |
with his gavel, remarkin2 that this
was not a laughing school,
Mr. 'Pfau: mo, sir. this is not
matter, and we will show
that we are here for business" Mr..
Pau went Oh with an argument on
the law Of conditional sale. He said
that even if it was conditional sale,
the fact of the contract not having
been filed did not affect the title to
the property, and the larceny was
just as plain. The purchaser must
show that he has purchased in good
faith, which Diemel did not do. All
who had a hand in the removal of the
property are, under the law, just as
guilty as the principal. Ii is neces-
oaro IN chOw whether there WAS a cOn.