The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-07-22

wasn't $4,000 there so 1 gave him
| enough to make up the difference, ana
| he said he would give me note for
| $1,000 and l could get my money out
| of the bank any time 1 wanted 1t. He
| told me 1 was an ignorant boor and
| didn't know anything about money
matters"
Did he give you the note?"
| Eyes, sir"
Were you paid the sum of 81, $40. So.
or any other amount by Mr. Bickel or
anybody else at the bank on Nov. 9?'
| mo- sir"
did Mr. Bickel pay you $1.940.5S or
| any other sum in cash on Nov. or at
any other timer
| mo sir" answered Mr.. Lucius.
when did all this occur, before or
| after the service of the garnishee sum-
mons upon you?"
"Afterward, day or two"
The witness said he saw Mr. Bickel
the day after Mr.. Bickel gave him the
| note.
Cross examined by Mr.. Mcdonald
Mr.. Lucius, how long have you
| known Mr.. Bickel?"
'Since August, 1896, or latter part OF
July"
WAS that the first time you knew
him."
Yes, sir
Mr. Lucius admitted that he had
|
! money from him two or three times
between Aug. 1 and date of garn1sh-
ment Witness knew nobody in the
! bank except Mr.. Bickel. Witness had
| a bank book, but gave it to Mr.. Blckel
at the time of the last transaction with
| him. Witness gave the book up be-
! tween one and two days after he was
served with garnishment papers. II
was either the 18th or 18th of Novem-
| Der, and the garnishee summons was
| served on him either the 9th or 10Th, he
| couldn't remember which.
Mr. Lucius said that when he got
| to the bank, after being sent for, he
noticed that the clerks and paying tel
Ter were there, but couldn't remember
seeing any one else, except Mr. Sui
Ivan. The witness went back to Mr..
Bickels room, and talked with Mr..
Bickel. Here witness again related
the conversation he had had with Mr..
Bickel relative to the punishment.
where is that note you say Mr..
Bickel gave your
Here the assistant county attorney
interposed an objection. The question
was, did Mr.. Bickel tell the truth be-
fore Mr.. Hillman. 1t made no diff
ference whether Mr.. Bickel gave Luc-
iuS note or not.
MI Mcdonald arose at this point,
and in excited tones, declared
q propose to show that this witness
| is a falsifer, and drive him to the wall.
| He testified that he received a note
from Mr. Bickel. Where is that note?
Why don't the defense produce it?"
| The assistant county attorney re-
| piled with a sharp criticism of the
manner Of cross-eXamination adopted
| by the defense, which he characterized
as species Of bravadO and bullyrag-
| ging.
Mr.. Mcdonald said he had no inten-
ton of being discourte0us, but assured
| the court that he knew Lucius and
| how to handle him.
The court overruled the states OBJ
lection and allowed the question.
Mr.. Lucius-I gave that note to Dam
iel w. Doty.
The note was here produced. 1t was
a demand note for $4,000 at per cent,
signed by w. F. Bickel, personally.
! The state objected to it's introduction,
but the court allowed the note to be
received in evidence.
Did you give or sign any receipt for
your money!"
Il don't remember" was the hest
! tating answer.
The question was repeated and the
witness gave the same answer. He
couldn't remember signing anything
but the ordinary check When shown
the check the witness said it looked
| like his handwriting. Asked if he had
signed any other receipt Lucius an
sWered:
IT don't know that signed an
| other"
other?"
81 don't know that did"
Are you sure; will you swear that
you didn't?' - -
Not that I know of. I don't know
anything about it. I just took Mr..
| Bickel's word"
Did you know whether you got
your money!"
Il know 1 didn't"
Did you sign a receipt to the bank?"
| II don't know that [ did,
Again 1 ask you, will you swear Won
didn't sign receipt"
| won't swear. l don't know"
Mr. Mcdonald then introduced a sec
ond receipt, dated Nov 9 and signed by
| Mr.: Lucius acknowledging the receipt
| bank '''o'
Lucius, when shown this receipt. said
! that the signature looked like his. but
ne couldn't tell anything about it Re
peatlng his old answer Lucius said:
L can't tell anything about it, only
remember that [ signed one receipt"
Inc defense was unable to pin the
witness down to any positive state
| hent, except that he had never receiy-
ed his money To every other question,
! his 1nvariable response was: 81 don't
remember anything about it. I don't
| know.
| Witness, when asked if he had not
stated to w. I. Rogers that he had
drawn his money from the bank before
! he was served with the garnishee pa
| pers, answered:
| I don't remember that I did"
| will you swear that you didn't?"
Inc witness hesitated and started to
answer, but his answer was unrespor-
| SlVe, and counsel cut him Off
The question was repeated, and final
! ~ the witness, in answer to the cues
ton: Did you tell Mr.. Rogers Won
mad drawn your money out of the
bank before you were served with gar
n1shee papers, replied:
| ''It might be-"
Mr.. Mcdonald asked Mr.. Lucius if it
wasn't MS purpose to transfer his
| money so that the st. Paul Fire Brick
| company couldn't get it. In reply, Luz
Gus said that he took Mr.. Bickels
word for everything, believing him to
be the president of and a large stock
| holder In the bank, and that he didn't
mean to do anything wrong
Mr.. Mcdonald asked Mr. Lucius if
he had ever demanded payment Of the
note given him by Mr.. Bickel, but the
| question was ruled out. The defense
explained that it's purpose was to show
| that Lucius accepted Bickels personal
note for his deposit, and did not consd-
er that the Minnesota Savings bank
owed him anything.
Court adjourned at this point until 10
| a. m. today.
1t is the contention of the defense
| that Lucius received the personal note
of Mr.. Bickel for $4,000 in full payment